How Does Chaucer Explore Social Class and Hierarchy in The Canterbury Tales?
Author: MARTIN MUNYAO MUINDE
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Chaucer explores social class and hierarchy in “The Canterbury Tales” by bringing together pilgrims from all levels of medieval society—nobility, clergy, and commons—and examining how class distinctions shape behavior, values, relationships, and storytelling. Through the General Prologue’s estate satire, the interactions between pilgrims of different ranks, and the tales they tell, Chaucer reveals that fourteenth-century England’s supposedly fixed social hierarchy was actually unstable and contested, with emerging middle-class wealth challenging traditional aristocratic privilege, corrupt clergy betraying their spiritual authority, and individuals navigating complex social identities. The Canterbury Tales demonstrates that social class affects everything from speech patterns and moral values to marriage choices and professional ethics, while simultaneously questioning whether birth or merit should determine social worth and exposing the hypocrisies within each social stratum.
What Is the Three Estates System in Medieval Society?
The medieval social structure that Chaucer inherited was theoretically organized according to the three estates model, which divided society into those who pray (clergy), those who fight (nobility), and those who work (peasants and laborers). This tripartite division emerged in the early Middle Ages and served to justify social inequality by presenting it as divinely ordained and functionally necessary (Duby, 1980). Each estate had specific responsibilities: the clergy provided spiritual guidance and intercession with God, the nobility protected society through military service and governance, and the commons produced the material goods necessary for survival through agricultural and craft labor. The system was hierarchical, with clergy and nobility possessing higher status than commoners, but it also emphasized mutual dependence, as each estate needed the others to function. This idealized model presented social hierarchy as stable, natural, and beneficial, with each person fulfilling their assigned role for the common good.
However, by Chaucer’s time in the late fourteenth century, this neat tripartite model no longer adequately described English social reality. Economic changes, including the growth of commerce, urbanization, and the aftermath of the Black Death, had created new social groups that did not fit the traditional categories (Swanson, 1989). Merchants, lawyers, physicians, and other professionals possessed wealth and education that rivaled or exceeded that of minor nobility, yet they lacked aristocratic birth. The clergy had differentiated into wealthy bishops and abbots who lived like princes and poor parish priests who barely survived. The commons now included prosperous gentry who owned substantial land, urban artisans organized into powerful guilds, and landless laborers with nothing to sell but their work. Chaucer’s Canterbury pilgrims reflect this complex social reality, representing not just three estates but numerous gradations and categories that reveal how inadequate the traditional model had become (Mann, 1973). The pilgrimage framework allows Chaucer to bring together people from diverse social positions who would rarely interact in normal circumstances, creating opportunities to explore how class differences shape identity, behavior, and relationships while also revealing the tensions and transformations affecting England’s social structure.
How Does the General Prologue Establish Social Hierarchy?
The General Prologue establishes social hierarchy through the order in which pilgrims are introduced, with Chaucer generally moving from higher to lower social ranks, though with significant variations that reveal his complex attitude toward class. The prologue begins with the Knight, representing the military aristocracy, followed by his son the Squire and their servant the Yeoman, establishing the aristocratic estate at the pilgrimage’s social apex (Chaucer, 1987). The Prioress, Monk, and Friar follow, representing the ecclesiastical hierarchy, before Chaucer introduces the Merchant, Clerk, Sergeant of Law, and other members of the emerging professional and commercial classes. The lowest-status pilgrims—the Cook, Shipman, Miller, Reeve, and Plowman—appear toward the end, reflecting their subordinate social positions. This descending order mirrors medieval hierarchical assumptions about social worth, with those of noble birth and religious authority positioned above those who work with their hands or engage in commerce.
However, Chaucer’s treatment of the pilgrims complicates simple hierarchical ordering through the length, detail, and tone of individual portraits. The Knight receives relatively brief treatment emphasizing his military service and modest demeanor, while the Prioress’s portrait is much longer and focuses on her affected manners and questionable priorities, subtly critiquing rather than celebrating her status (Mann, 1973). Some lower-status pilgrims like the Miller and Wife of Bath receive extensive, vivid portraits that make them more memorable than their social superiors, suggesting that narrative interest and human complexity do not correlate directly with social rank. The Parson and Plowman, though among the lowest in social status, are presented as moral exemplars superior to corrupt clergy of higher rank. This disjunction between social position and moral worth represents Chaucer’s fundamental critique of hierarchical assumptions: the General Prologue establishes that medieval society is organized hierarchically but questions whether this organization reflects genuine merit or merely traditional prejudice (Bowden, 1948). The portraits reveal that corruption, hypocrisy, and vice appear at all social levels, while virtue, when present, transcends class boundaries. Chaucer thus uses the General Prologue’s careful construction to simultaneously acknowledge social hierarchy’s power in medieval life and to interrogate its moral and practical legitimacy.
What Role Does the Emerging Middle Class Play?
The emerging middle class plays a crucial role in The Canterbury Tales as a disruptive force challenging traditional social hierarchies and creating new forms of wealth, power, and cultural authority. Pilgrims like the Merchant, Franklin, Sergeant of Law, Physician, and Wife of Bath represent this rising commercial and professional class that had accumulated significant wealth through trade, legal practice, medicine, and manufacturing (Patterson, 1991). These figures occupy ambiguous social positions: they lack noble birth but possess economic resources that exceed those of many minor aristocrats; they have achieved education and cultural sophistication but remain excluded from full aristocratic acceptance; they wield considerable power in their communities through wealth and professional expertise but lack the inherited authority of traditional elites. The tension between their actual power and their social status creates anxiety and ambition visible throughout their characterizations and tales.
The middle-class pilgrims reveal different strategies for navigating their ambiguous social position and claiming legitimacy within a hierarchical society. The Franklin, as discussed in earlier analysis, attempts to adopt aristocratic values and manners, demonstrating cultural sophistication through his tale while remaining self-conscious about his non-noble origins (Saul, 1986). The Wife of Bath aggressively asserts her worth through economic success in cloth-making and through her tale’s argument that women should have sovereignty, challenging both class and gender hierarchies simultaneously (Martin, 2002). The Merchant channels his commercial mindset into his cynical tale about marriage as economic transaction, revealing how professional identity shapes personal relationships and values. These varied approaches demonstrate that the middle class was not monolithic but contained diverse individuals with different relationships to traditional hierarchy, some aspiring to aristocratic status, others asserting the dignity of their own achievements, still others cynically exploiting the system for personal gain. The presence of these figures in The Canterbury Tales reflects the historical reality that fourteenth-century England’s social structure was in flux, with economic power increasingly divorced from birth status and new forms of social organization emerging to challenge feudal hierarchies. Chaucer’s sympathetic yet critical portrayal of middle-class pilgrims suggests his recognition that this class represented both opportunity for social renewal and potential for new forms of exploitation and corruption.
How Do the Tales Reflect Class Conflict?
The tales themselves become vehicles for class conflict as pilgrims use their storytelling to assert superiority, challenge rivals, or defend their social positions. The Miller’s interruption of the intended story order—where he drunkenly insists on telling his tale immediately after the Knight rather than allowing the Monk to speak next—represents a direct assault on social hierarchy and decorum (Chaucer, 1987). His bawdy fabliau about a carpenter cuckolded by a clever student deliberately contrasts with the Knight’s aristocratic romance, substituting low characters, physical comedy, and sexual content for the Knight’s chivalric ideals. This juxtaposition creates implicit commentary: the Miller’s tale suggests that beneath aristocratic pretensions to refined love and noble conduct, humans are driven by lust, greed, and physical desire regardless of class. The Miller’s challenge to social order is both narrative and behavioral, as his drunken assertiveness violates the proper deference lower-class individuals should show to their betters (Lindahl, 1987).
The Reeve’s tale extends this pattern of class conflict through storytelling, as the Reeve, offended because he was once a carpenter like the Miller’s cuckolded character, responds with a tale mocking millers as thieves and fools. This exchange establishes a pattern where pilgrims of similar social status compete for dignity and superiority through tales that mock each other’s professions or social positions (Benson, 1986). The Friar and Summoner’s mutual antagonism leads to tales specifically designed to humiliate each other, with the Friar telling a story about a corrupt summoner dragged to hell and the Summoner retaliating with a tale about a greedy friar receiving a fart as his reward. These conflicts reveal how social tensions within and between classes manifest through narrative competition, with storytelling becoming a form of symbolic violence where characters too subordinate to challenge their superiors directly can at least attack rivals of similar status. The class conflict embedded in these tale exchanges suggests that medieval social hierarchy, rather than creating stable order, generated constant jockeying for position, resentment between adjacent ranks, and barely suppressed aggression that erupted whenever circumstances permitted. Chaucer’s dramatization of these conflicts through the tale-telling competition demonstrates his understanding that social hierarchy is maintained not through consensus but through power, and that those with less power constantly seek opportunities to challenge or subvert the system that subordinates them.
What Is the Role of Noble Characters in Questioning Class?
The noble characters in The Canterbury Tales, particularly the Knight and his tale, serve to examine aristocratic ideals and question whether the nobility fulfills the responsibilities that justify their privileged position. The Knight is presented as the most conventionally admirable pilgrim, having fought in numerous crusades and battles in service to Christianity, yet Chaucer’s portrait contains subtle ambiguities that complicate uncritical celebration of chivalric values (Jones, 1980). The Knight’s extensive military service has taken him to far-flung locations, raising questions about whether he is a pious crusader or a mercenary selling his sword to various causes. His modest appearance and demeanor contrast with the Squire’s fashionable dress and courtly accomplishments, suggesting generational differences in aristocratic values. The Knight’s Tale itself, while presenting an idealized vision of chivalric honor and courtly love, also reveals the violence, possessiveness, and arbitrary exercise of power inherent in aristocratic culture, as Duke Theseus imprisons Palamon and Arcite and later forces them to compete for Emily without considering her preferences (Aers, 1980).
The Squire and the Franklin’s interaction further complicates the portrayal of nobility and its relationship to emerging middle-class aspirations. The Squire represents aristocratic youth, trained in courtly accomplishments like music, dancing, and poetic composition, yet his tale remains unfinished, possibly suggesting the inadequacy of aristocratic culture to address complex moral and social questions (Pearsall, 1985). The Franklin’s excessive praise of the Squire and his wish that his own son could learn gentillesse from the young aristocrat reveal the cultural authority that nobility still possessed despite economic changes empowering the middle class. However, the Franklin’s tale ultimately argues that gentillesse derives from virtuous behavior rather than noble birth, directly challenging the aristocratic monopoly on honor and virtue (Blamires, 1991). This argument represents middle-class ideology seeking legitimacy by redefining nobility as achievement rather than inheritance. The noble characters thus function in The Canterbury Tales not merely as representatives of their class but as focal points for broader debates about whether birth should determine social worth, whether aristocratic values remain viable in changing economic circumstances, and whether the nobility’s actual behavior justifies their privileged position. Chaucer’s treatment suggests respect for aristocratic ideals while questioning whether actual aristocrats live up to those ideals and whether non-nobles might embody noble virtues more authentically than those born to privilege.
How Does Chaucer Portray the Clergy Across Social Classes?
Chaucer’s portrayal of clergy across different social ranks reveals that ecclesiastical corruption is not class-specific but appears throughout the church hierarchy in forms appropriate to each level’s particular temptations and opportunities. The high-ranking clergy represented by the Monk and Prioress have abandoned religious discipline for worldly comfort and status, with the Monk preferring hunting and fine food to monastic austerity and the Prioress concerning herself with courtly manners and sentimental affections rather than spiritual devotion (Chaucer, 1987). These portrayals suggest that clergy of aristocratic origins or high ecclesiastical rank are corrupted by wealth and the desire to maintain lifestyles comparable to secular nobles. Their corruption is one of priorities and values: they have not technically violated their vows but have hollowed them out, maintaining the external forms of religious life while abandoning its spiritual substance (Bowden, 1948).
The lower-ranking corrupt clergy—the Friar, Pardoner, and Summoner—engage in more actively malicious and exploitative behavior, using their ecclesiastical positions to manipulate and defraud common people for financial gain. The Friar uses his theological training and position to seduce women and extract money from penitents, prioritizing profit over pastoral care (Szittya, 1986). The Pardoner openly admits to selling fake relics and manipulating simple believers’ fears about damnation to enrich himself, representing the most cynical possible corruption of religious office. The Summoner uses his power to summon people to ecclesiastical courts as a tool for extortion and blackmail. These lower-ranking corrupt clergy victimize the poor and ignorant, suggesting that ecclesiastical corruption operates differently at different social levels: wealthy clergy indulge themselves while poor clergy exploit others. Against these corrupt figures of all ranks stands the Parson, whose poverty, dedication, and authentic piety demonstrate that clerical virtue is possible regardless of wealth or status (Jost, 1999). The range of clerical corruption across social classes suggests Chaucer’s view that the problem is systemic rather than individual, affecting the entire church structure, yet his inclusion of the virtuous Parson prevents the critique from becoming simply anticlerical. The clergy’s class-differentiated forms of corruption reveal how social position shapes the particular temptations individuals face and the specific ways they fail their vocations, while also demonstrating that virtue, when present, transcends these structural factors.
What Is the Significance of the Wife of Bath’s Class Position?
The Wife of Bath occupies a particularly interesting class position as a prosperous artisan who has achieved economic independence through her skill in cloth-making and through inheriting wealth from her five husbands. Her commercial success places her among the urban middle class, yet her occupation as a cloth-maker, while lucrative, lacks the prestige of professions like law or medicine (Martin, 2002). The Wife represents the possibility of female economic autonomy within certain sectors of the medieval economy, where widows could inherit and control businesses and where skilled crafts could generate significant wealth. Her economic position gives her unusual freedom for a medieval woman, allowing her to make choices about marriage, travel, and self-presentation that would be impossible for women dependent on male relatives for survival. Her participation in the Canterbury pilgrimage itself, traveling without male family oversight, demonstrates the autonomy that economic resources could provide.
The Wife of Bath uses her tale and prologue to challenge not only gender hierarchies but also class assumptions about who can speak with authority on philosophical and theological matters. Her lengthy prologue, where she argues with biblical and patristic authorities about marriage and female sexuality, demonstrates intellectual engagement with learned traditions typically reserved for educated clergy and aristocrats (Dinshaw, 1989). She claims experiential authority based on her five marriages to counter the theoretical authority of celibate male clerics who write about marriage without personal knowledge. This assertion of experience over book-learning represents a class-based epistemological challenge: the Wife argues that practical knowledge gained through lived experience is as valid as, or more valid than, abstract knowledge gained through scholarly study. Her tale about the loathly lady who transforms into a beautiful woman after being granted sovereignty further develops themes of class and gender, suggesting that true gentillesse derives from behavior rather than birth and that women of any class deserve autonomy and respect (Hansen, 1992). The Wife of Bath’s class position as a prosperous but not elite woman allows her to challenge multiple hierarchies simultaneously—gender, class, and intellectual authority—making her one of Chaucer’s most subversive characters. Her characterization demonstrates how individuals who occupy marginal or intermediate class positions may be particularly positioned to see and critique social hierarchies that seem natural or inevitable to those more securely positioned within them.
How Do Marriage and Class Intersect in the Tales?
Marriage functions throughout The Canterbury Tales as a key site where class hierarchies are reproduced, challenged, or negotiated, as marital choices typically reflected and reinforced social stratification. The Merchant’s Tale presents marriage as fundamentally an economic transaction where the elderly January selects young May based on her beauty and treats her as property to be purchased and controlled, reflecting how medieval marriages, especially among propertied classes, were arranged according to financial and social considerations rather than affection or compatibility (Brown, 2005). The marriage market operates according to class logic, with individuals of similar wealth and status typically marrying to preserve or enhance family position. January’s wealth allows him to purchase a young, beautiful wife despite his age, demonstrating how economic resources translate into power over marriage choices. The tale’s bitter ending, where May betrays January through adultery, suggests critique of marriages based on economic calculation rather than mutual affection and respect.
The Franklin’s Tale offers a contrasting vision of marriage as partnership between equals, where the knight Arveragus promises never to exercise sovereignty over his wife Dorigen except in public appearances, and she reciprocates by promising faithful obedience (Chaucer, 1987). This companionate marriage model represents an idealized alternative to the dominant medieval pattern of hierarchical marriages where husbands exercised authority over wives as part of the broader social hierarchy (Kittredge, 1912). However, even this idealized marriage remains constrained by class considerations and honor codes: when Dorigen faces a moral dilemma, Arveragus’s aristocratic concern for honor compels her to keep her rash promise despite the personal cost. The Wife of Bath’s Prologue offers yet another perspective on marriage and class, as she describes her strategic use of marriage to accumulate wealth and power, marrying older wealthy men whom she could dominate before choosing her fifth husband for love (Martin, 2002). Her marriages demonstrate how women of the artisan class could leverage the marriage market for economic advancement, using sexuality and labor to extract resources from husbands. These varied portrayals reveal that marriage in medieval society operated as a crucial institution for organizing class relationships, transferring property, and reproducing social hierarchies, yet also as a site of potential resistance where individuals might negotiate different terms or use marriage strategically to advance their positions. The intersection of marriage and class in The Canterbury Tales demonstrates Chaucer’s awareness that personal relationships are always shaped by social structures even as individuals attempt to navigate those structures according to their own desires and interests.
What Do the Low-Status Characters Reveal About Social Hierarchy?
The low-status characters in The Canterbury Tales—including the Miller, Reeve, Cook, Plowman, and others—reveal how social hierarchy is experienced and resisted by those at its bottom, whose labor supports the entire social system yet who receive minimal recognition or reward. These characters demonstrate that lower-class individuals possess intelligence, cunning, moral complexity, and cultural sophistication that elite ideology denies them, challenging stereotypes of peasants and laborers as simple, brutish, or incapable of complex thought (Aers, 1986). The Miller’s crude but cleverly constructed tale displays narrative skill and satirical intelligence, while the Reeve’s response demonstrates similar capabilities, suggesting that literary and intellectual abilities are not class-restricted. The Wife of Bath, though from the artisan class, engages theological and philosophical authorities with confidence and sophistication. These characterizations imply that class hierarchies are arbitrary rather than natural, based on birth and opportunity rather than inherent capability.
The Plowman represents the idealized vision of the laboring class, described as living in peace and perfect charity, loving God above all things, and working hard while helping his neighbors without expecting payment (Chaucer, 1987). His portrait, paired with his brother the Parson, suggests that the foundation of society—those who perform physical labor to produce food and material necessities—can embody the highest moral and spiritual virtues despite their low social status. This idealization serves both to honor honest labor and to implicitly critique higher-status pilgrims who lack the Plowman’s authentic virtue. However, other low-status characters like the Miller and Reeve are portrayed as more ambiguous, possessing both admirable cleverness and troubling tendencies toward violence, drunkenness, or dishonesty (Lindahl, 1987). These mixed portrayals resist simple romanticization of the lower classes while still granting them complexity and humanity often denied by elite perspectives. The low-status characters collectively reveal that social hierarchy does not reflect moral worth, that those at society’s bottom possess capabilities and virtues that the system fails to recognize, and that class position shapes but does not determine character. Chaucer’s willingness to give voice, personality, and narrative agency to characters whom elite literature typically ignored or stereotyped represents a democratizing impulse that questions hierarchical assumptions while realistically depicting the diverse humanity found at all social levels.
How Does the Pilgrimage Framework Challenge Class Boundaries?
The pilgrimage framework itself functions as a temporary suspension of normal class boundaries, creating a liminal space where individuals from vastly different social ranks travel together, interact, and compete on relatively equal terms. Medieval pilgrimage traditionally brought together people of all classes pursuing the common religious goal of visiting sacred shrines, creating unusual opportunities for cross-class interaction that normal social segregation prevented (Sumption, 1975). The Canterbury pilgrimage places a knight and a plowman, a prioress and a wife of bath, a lawyer and a miller in the same company, forcing them into proximity and interaction that would be impossible in their regular social contexts. The storytelling competition further equalizes the pilgrims by giving each one opportunity to speak, entertain, and compete for the prize regardless of their social rank, creating a meritocratic space where narrative skill rather than birth determines success.
However, Chaucer also reveals the limitations of this temporary equality and the persistence of class hierarchies even within the pilgrimage’s supposedly egalitarian framework. The Host, Harry Bailly, who organizes the storytelling competition, shows clear class bias in his interactions with different pilgrims, treating the Knight with respect while mocking or patronizing lower-status pilgrims (Patterson, 1991). The intended order of storytelling, where the Knight speaks first followed by other high-status pilgrims, reflects hierarchical assumptions about who deserves to speak and whose voices carry authority. The Miller’s drunken interruption of this order is treated as transgressive precisely because it violates class-based expectations about deference and proper behavior. The pilgrimage thus creates space for questioning class boundaries while simultaneously revealing how deeply embedded those boundaries are in social behavior, expectations, and power dynamics. This ambivalent treatment suggests Chaucer’s recognition that while individual contexts might create temporary opportunities for cross-class interaction and mutual recognition, the underlying structures of hierarchy remain powerful and resistant to fundamental change. The pilgrimage functions as a social laboratory where Chaucer can explore what happens when class boundaries are partially suspended, revealing both the possibilities for human connection across social divides and the persistent power of hierarchical thinking to reassert itself even in theoretically equal circumstances. The framework thus becomes a vehicle for interrogating class while simultaneously demonstrating why that interrogation rarely translates into actual social transformation.
Conclusion
Chaucer’s exploration of social class and hierarchy in “The Canterbury Tales” reveals a society in profound transition, where traditional feudal structures were being challenged by economic changes, emerging middle-class power, and increasingly diverse forms of wealth and authority. Through the careful construction of the General Prologue, the interactions between pilgrims of different ranks, and the tales they tell, Chaucer demonstrates that class affects virtually every aspect of medieval life—from speech patterns and manners to moral values and marriage choices. His portraits reveal corruption, hypocrisy, and vice at all social levels, from wealthy clergy and nobility to poor pardoners and summoners, while also showing that virtue, when present, transcends class boundaries. The Canterbury Tales suggests that social hierarchy is neither natural nor morally justified but rather an arbitrary system based on birth rather than merit, yet Chaucer also recognizes the system’s enormous power to shape lives, limit opportunities, and structure relationships.
The work’s enduring significance lies partly in its refusal to offer simple answers about class and hierarchy. Chaucer neither celebrates the existing order nor advocates for revolutionary change, but rather presents the complex, contradictory reality of a stratified society with remarkable nuance and humanity. He acknowledges legitimate grievances of those oppressed by hierarchy while recognizing that oppressed groups themselves often reproduce hierarchical thinking when given opportunity. He critiques aristocratic privilege while respecting genuine nobility of character wherever it appears. He exposes middle-class social climbing while sympathizing with aspirations for recognition and respect. This balanced, complex approach makes The Canterbury Tales one of literature’s most sophisticated examinations of social class, offering insights that remain relevant to contemporary discussions of inequality, privilege, and social justice. Chaucer’s achievement lies in creating a work that simultaneously documents the rigid class system of medieval England and imagines the possibility of human connection, mutual recognition, and moral judgment that transcend the arbitrary distinctions of birth and status.
References
Aers, D. (1980). Chaucer, Langland, and the Creative Imagination. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Aers, D. (1986). Chaucer’s Representations of Marriage and Sexual Relations. In Chaucer, Langland and the Creative Imagination (pp. 143-182). Routledge.
Benson, C. D. (1986). Chaucer’s Drama of Style: Poetic Variety and Contrast in the Canterbury Tales. University of North Carolina Press.
Blamires, A. (1991). The Wife of Bath and Lollardy. Medium Ævum, 60(2), 224-242.
Bowden, M. (1948). A Commentary on the General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales. Macmillan.
Brown, P. (Ed.). (2005). A Companion to Chaucer. Blackwell Publishing.
Chaucer, G. (1987). The Canterbury Tales (L. D. Benson, Ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company.
Dinshaw, C. (1989). Chaucer’s Sexual Poetics. University of Wisconsin Press.
Duby, G. (1980). The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
Hansen, E. T. (1992). Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender. University of California Press.
Jones, T. (1980). Chaucer’s Knight: The Portrait of a Medieval Mercenary. Louisiana State University Press.
Jost, J. E. (1999). Chaucer’s Humor: Critical Essays. Garland Publishing.
Kittredge, G. L. (1912). Chaucer’s Discussion of Marriage. Modern Philology, 9(4), 435-467.
Lindahl, C. (1987). Earnest Games: Folkloric Patterns in the Canterbury Tales. Indiana University Press.
Mann, J. (1973). Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire. Cambridge University Press.
Martin, P. (2002). Chaucer’s Women: Nuns, Wives, and Amazons. University of Iowa Press.
Patterson, L. (1991). Chaucer and the Subject of History. University of Wisconsin Press.
Pearsall, D. (1985). The Canterbury Tales. George Allen & Unwin.
Saul, N. (1986). The Social Status of Chaucer’s Franklin: A Reconsideration. Medium Ævum, 52(1), 10-26.
Sumption, J. (1975). Pilgrimage: An Image of Medieval Religion. Rowman and Littlefield.
Swanson, R. N. (1989). Church and Society in Late Medieval England. Basil Blackwell.
Szittya, P. R. (1986). The Antifraternal Tradition in Medieval Literature. Princeton University Press.