Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Time to start the discussion. Chaucer carefully lays out the setting of his work, his characters, his plan, in the General Prologue. What did you find of particular interest, or lack thereof?

Language and culture change over time. The core ideas and principles of the Canterbury Tales are timeless, but I think we can benefit from some understanding of some key differences between Chaucer's language and times and ours.

I haven't yet found an edition with really good notes -- most editions I've seen tend to focus on understanding the words. So if you run across useful comments on textual issues, don't hesitate to post them.

For example, I didn't understand what palmers [line 13] were until I came across another reference to them. [My spell check doesn't even accept palmers as a legitimate word!]

According to the OED, a palmer was a pilgrim who had made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and carried a palm leaf as a symbol of that trip. While today traveling to the Holy Land is not a big deal, what with air travel, good roads, speedy trains, buses, and cars, and few brigands on the roads, in Chaucer's day it was a significant undertaking, whether by sea in a sailing ship or overland by foot or horse.

Okay, I'll bite.

I was interested in how all the characters are exaggerated. The Knight is the perfect emblem of knighthood, the physician knows everything, the parson is almost saintly, the wife of bath has been married five times and gone to Jerusalem three, etc. I'm not entirely sure whether I should read this as the narrator's humorous interpretation, or a somewhat deadpanned commentary on the ways people do exaggerate facts about their lives ("The fish was THIS BIG!").

Either way, the effect it creates for me is humorous, and sets me up to expect that the actual tales will be similarly larger than life.

In some places it reminded me of Jane Austen, of all odd writers to be reminded of. For example, the Prioress is described with a very Austen-like attention to detail pointing up her prissiness. I also enjoyed the moment at the end of the Monk's description for its cutting sarcasm:

"And I seide his opinion was good:
What sholde he studye, and make himselven wood,
Upon a book in cloistre alwey to poure,
Or swinken with his handes and laboure,
As Austin bit? How shal the world be served?
Lat Austin have his swink to him reserved!"

I found the Parson the most uninteresting character of the lot, because despite all of the nutty exaggerations of the other characters he was the most unrealistic. We lack even a physical description of him. I almost feel like he was thrown in there to counterbalance all of the rather awful members of the clergy also of the party, and not really because Chaucer wanted him there.

I'm definitely struggling with the Middle English. Nevertheless, I find the language interesting in itself, so I want to work through.

Everyman wrote: "According to the OED, a palmer was a pilgrim who had made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and carried a palm leaf as a symbol of that trip."

Like in Romeo and Juliet- "And palm to palm is holy palmers' kiss."

Canterbury, for those whose English geography is a bit hazy, is southeast of Southwark (which is on the southern edge of London), about 58 miles on modern roads - I don't know what the distance on the roads them would have been, but in April I'm assuming there was still a bit of mud in the roads so it would have been a somewhat messy ride. It's not clear to me whether all the pilgrims were mounted or whether some were traveling on foot, but let's assume that they covered about 3 miles an hour on average; that would be about 20 hours of travel, or several days.

The Tabard Inn was an actual establishment in 14th century England. Madge may know whether it still exists.

Though Chaucer doesn't say so in the Prologue, the saint whose tomb they were visiting in Canterbury was Thomas a' Becket. I originally "met" him through the play and film "A Man for All Seasons;" it's an excellent film.

He was appointed Chancellor of England by Henry II in 1154, and was a strong defender of Henry's interests against the Church (at the time the Church and Crown were in frequent conflict over which was the primary source of power and authority over the people). (We are talking Roman Catholic Church here; the Reformation is still centuries away). He was also very close to Henry personally, and was known for his aristocratic and very comfortable lifestyle.

Because of his devotion to Henry and his promotion of Henry's interests against those of the Church, in 1162 Henry nominated him archbishop of Canterbury, expecting Thomas to remain a strong supporter of the rights of the Crown. Even though he was neither a monk, the traditional source of archbishops, or even a priest, the monks reluctantly ordained him one day and the next day appointed him archbishop. (One of the most rapid elevations to power in church history, it seems to me!)

But Thomas, having taken on the oath of a vicar of Christ, basically did a 180 and used his considerable abilities to promote and support the interests of the Church, frustrating and infuriating Henry no end.

In 1164 Henry tried to bring charges against Becket for actions taken while he was chancellor, and Beckett fled to France. In 1170, at York, Henry had his son Henry the Young King ordained a joint King of parts of England, infuriating Becket who believed that the privilege of canonizing a king was solely the right of Canterbury, not of York. Henry and Beckett made up, and Beckett returned to England in 1170, but in November of that year he excommunicated the Bishop of York, further infuriating Henry. According to tradition, Henry (then in France, and perhaps while under the influence of mead) protested "will no one rid me of this mettlesome priest"? Four of his knights saw this as a royal edict and on December 29, 1170 they slew Thomas on the altar of Canterbury cathedral, a very great sin that shocked Christendom.

Beckett became an almost instant martyr, and was canonized just three years later. There were many miracles of healing attributed to him, and his tomb became the most frequent site of pilgrimage in England. Thus Chaucer's choice of this shrine for the Tales.

As a postscript, in 1538 Henry VIII declared Beckett a traitor and destroyed his shrine, but his memory and sainthood live on.

Source: Oxford Companion to British History

S. Rosemary wrote: "Okay, I'll bite.

I was interested in how all the characters are exaggerated. The Knight is the perfect emblem of knighthood, the physician knows everything, the parson is almost saintly, the wif..."

That's an interesting observation. I hadn't noticed it myself, but I'll go back and look with fresh eyes.

Perhaps it's because Chaucer, as a member of the company, thought it judicious to say only good things about his fellow travelers.

Or perhaps it is because only the best people would go on such a pilgrimage (yes, that's sarcasm; as we'll see soon, some of these folks are NOT the best people!)

Everyman wrote: "S. Rosemary wrote: "Okay, I'll bite.

I was interested in how all the characters are exaggerated. The Knight is the perfect emblem of knighthood, the physician knows everything, the parson is alm..."

Perhaps the narrator is, with a straight face giving to us what the humble pilgrims have given to him.

Everyman wrote: "I haven't yet found an edition with really good notes -- most editions I've seen tend to focus on understanding the words. So if you run across useful comments on textual issues, don't hesitate to post them."

I'm using the Oxford World Classics edition and it seems to have pretty good notes. For example, it had a note on what a palmer was.

Another interesting note so far is about the knight. Apparently, it was long believed that the knight was an example of the ideal knight. But an analysis by Terry Jones in 1980 concluded that the description of the knight was satirical. One of his main points rests on the battles in which the knight participated, which were not the great "patriotic" battles, such as the hundred years war, but were more characteristic of mercenary activities. The note also states that this conclusion has been rebutted, and that others have pointed out that the knight's background is not unusual for the day and not necessarily disreputable.

Patrice wrote: "But best of all, "never in all his life had he been rude to anyone at all." Now you KNOW that HAS to be a lie. True, perfect and gentle? And where did this information come from? The HUMBLE knight of course! "

Good points, Rosemary, Ken, and Patrice. I need to keep in mind that Chaucer is not writing with the experience of Gotham Writer's Workshop or the lessons of a university course in writing to talk about things like omniscient narrator, etc.

His premise is that he has just met these people at a tavern. In theory, he is not taking the role of narrator, but of participant, so that all he should know is what he sees, what they tell him, and what others tell them of him (the knight's squire would likely be a source of information about the knight, and would presumably boast about how brave, gentle, etc. his master/father is, and what the squire didn't boast about the yeoman would).

That could be an interesting side discussion as we go on, how Chaucer as an author compares with what modern scholars and lit-crit profs consider good authorship. (Or not, if that would diminish or spoil the story.)

A basic Chaucer glossary:

http://pages.towson.edu/duncan/glossa...

And:

http://www.umm.maine.edu/faculty/neca...

Patrice wrote: "I agree Ken. The whole description is tongue in cheek. When you think of how long travel would take in those days, how on earth could he have been "at Alexandria when it was won" in Prussia, Lith..."

Patrice, you doubt the dichotomy of the knight when in fact it is a prerequisite of all military officers--you know that "officer and a gentleman" thing. At home, the knight is the model of chivalry, on the field a courageous and brutal warrior.

I think the movie "A Knight's Tale" did a wonderful job in Chaucer's introduction of Sir Ulrich before the joust:

Chaucer: You're good. You're very good. My lords, my ladies, and everybody else here not sitting on a cushion!
[crowd roars]
Chaucer: Today... today, you find yourselves equals.
[crowd roars]
Chaucer: For you are all equally blessed. For I have the pride, the privilege, nay, the pleasure of introducing to you to a knight, sired by knights. A knight who can trace his lineage back beyond Charlemagne. I first met him atop a mountain near Jerusalem, praying to God, asking his forgiveness for the Saracen blood spilt by his sword. Next, he amazed me still further in Italy when he saved a fatherless beauty from the would-be ravishing of her dreadful Turkish uncle.
[crowd, boo]
Chaucer: In Greece he spent a year in silence just to better understand the sound of a whisper. And so without further gilding the lily and with no more ado, I give to you, the seeker of serenity, the protector of Italian virginity, the enforcer of our Lord God, the one, the only, Sir Ulllrrrich von Lichtenstein!

We see the first stages of knighthood in the Knight's son/squire, a youth caught up in the romantic life of court and not yet experienced in battle.

Has anyone taken note of the significance of the order in which Chaucer presents his role call? He starts with the nobility, moves on to the clergy, and then finishes with the peasant class. All three estates are represented. He does seem to be trying to give us a picture of the social stratum of 14th century England, and though at first glance, it may appear overly flattering, if you understand the context of the times and read between the lines--more than the pardoner has warts.

Patrice wrote: "Gayle, I wasn't questioning the chivalric values. I think that he's being mocked by the exaggerated descriptions. This is the knight of knights who NEVER has offended ANYONE in his life. Who has..."

A bit of hyperbole I suppose...and perhaps Chaucer, a courtier, diplomat, and well-acquainted with the nobility just wants to keep his job (or his head).

Gayle wrote: "Has anyone taken note of the significance of the order in which Chaucer presents his role call? He starts with the nobility, moves on to the clergy, and then finishes with the peasant class. All ..."

Nice point. And, he gives fair representation to women, which seems pretty advanced for 14th C England.

Just copy the URL, and paste it into your post.

Everyman wrote: "Though Chaucer doesn't say so in the Prologue, the saint whose tomb they were visiting in Canterbury was Thomas a' Becket. I originally "met" him through the play and film "A Man for All Seasons..."

I think you confused Sir Thomas More with Thomas Becket. "A Man for All Seasons" was about More, Becket was portrayed by Richard Burton (with Peter O'Toole as Henry II) in another excellent film "Becket" (watch the film on YouTube).

And that was the same Henry II, years later, again played by O'Toole in The Lion in Winter.

Were there any other illustrations on manuscripts aside from the familiar one of Chaucer?
http://www.canterburytales.org/canter...

Everyman wrote: The Tabard Inn was an actual establishment in 14th century England. Madge may know whether it still exists.


It was destroyed by fire long ago, then rebuilt and called The Talbot, which features in Charles Dickens' novels. It was then demolished in 1873 but this was how it looked then:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tab...

The George Inn is now the only surviving 'Chaucerian' one in that area:-

http://www.pubs.com/main_site/pub_det...

And a very good pub it is too!

Patrice wrote: "The yeoman in dressed in green. I've been trying to find out the significance of green.
I think there were sumptuary laws that required people to wear certain colors according to their station. I..."

Yes, the Elizabethan sumptuary laws were class based and defined your station. Added to which certain dyes, like red and purple, were very expensive and had a certain symbolism. They were very strict laws which applied to all kinds of things, not just clothes, and were different for men and women. Shakespeare's plays also makes mention of these laws and he uses the same colours to define the status of his characters. Actors could wear these colours of they were playing upper class people but not in their everyday lives.

http://elizabethan.org/sumptuary/inde...

http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/mea...

Chaucer provided one of the earliest descriptions of a seafaring outfit when he described the mariner in The Canterbury Tales as being 'all in a gowne of falding to the knee.' Some fifteenth-century sources depict sailors clad in hooded gowns with wide sleeves that reached to their elbows. The slit hems made it easier to work aloft.

The Elizabeth sumptuary laws were not enacted until more than 100 years after Chaucer, though they might still prove an adequate guide to expectations. I seem to remember something about green being associated with woodsman. I have also read that in medieval times, green was symbolic of love and the natural desires of man. I'll have to dig up my notes to see if I can find verifiable references to these claims. Perhaps if anyone remembers any references from Gawain and the Green Knight?

Patrice wrote: "The yeoman in dressed in green. I've been trying to find out the significance of green.
I think there were sumptuary laws that required people to wear certain colors according to their station. I..."

Perhaps he has just come from the battlefield abroad and is on this pilgrimage to absolve himself before putting on the finery of court--Sort of clean up the inside before attending to the outside.

His appearance brings to my mind the battered knight in George MacDonald's "Phantastes."

Gayle wrote: "The Elizabeth sumptuary laws were not enacted until more than 100 years after Chaucer, though they might still prove an adequate guide to expectations. I seem to remember something about green bei..."

Yes, sorry Gayle, I shouldn't have specified the 'Elizabethan' laws. Sumptuary laws were first enacted in Medieval England in the reign of Edward III and were then updated and rigorously enforced by the Tudor monarchs. The Elizabethan ones are the best documented and more familiar to us because of Shakespeare.

http://www.medieval-life-and-times.in...

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/middle-...

I'm a bit confused by comments praising the pilgrims. It felt to me that in most, if not all, descriptions there was an antithesis showing the person in an unflattering light.

Eman, in an early comment about the conditions of the roads, wrote:...but in April I'm assuming there was still a bit of mud in the roads so it would have been a somewhat messy ride.

This reminded me of a question I had. Why does Chaucer start with that extended metaphor about spring? It seems a rather literary device compared to the fairly colloquial voice of the narrator that follows.

Nemo wrote: "I think you confused Sir Thomas More with Thomas Becket. "A Man for All Seasons" was about More, Becket was portrayed by Richard Burton (with Peter O'Toole as Henry II) in another excellent film "Becket""

You're absolutely right. My very, very bad.

Both are excellent films, but Becket is the one.

Zeke wrote: "This reminded me of a question I had. Why does Chaucer start with that extended metaphor about spring? It seems a rather literary device compared to the fairly colloquial voice of the narrator that follows. ."

Good question. I wonder whether Spring was a traditional time to start pilgrimages? Maybe a slow time for farmers and not yet good enough weather to restart wars paused during the winter, or maybe people just wanting to get out after a winter cooped up indoors and wanting to go somewhere?

But I like the start, giving us a bit of an entry point instead of starting right in meeting the pilgrims.

Zeke wrote: "I'm a bit confused by comments praising the pilgrims. It felt to me that in most, if not all, descriptions there was an antithesis showing the person in an unflattering light.."

For example?

Patrice wrote: "Would Easter be the time for a pilgrimage?"

Yes! That's why they went in Aprille.

Laurele wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Would Easter be the time for a pilgrimage?"

Yes! That's why they went in Aprille."

Maybe we should have switched Moby Dick and Canterbury Tales, so we could be reading it in April. But too late now. :(

Patrice wrote: "And perhaps palmers have something to do with palm sunday?"

Laurel is the one to answer that.

Everyman wrote: Good question. I wonder whether Spring was a traditional time to start pilgrimages? ..."

Yes, it is. It is the time of the Resurrection and re-birth etc. Although we have just celebrated the pagan idea of new beginnings in the New Year (well I have:)), for Christians Easter is, of course, this time. For a farming, peasant community, it was the time of new growth, newborn lambs etc.

In the gospel of Luke, Jesus, Mary and Joseph were said to participate in the yearly pilgrimage to Jerusalem to observe the Spring Feast of Passover, which celebrates the Jews' freedom from the bondage of Egypt. In much the same way, Christians in the first few centuries after Jesus' death and Resurrection journeyed from Europe and other parts of the globe to the sacred site of the Holy Land. By the Middles Ages, pilgrimages were a central part of popular religion and Canterbury was one of several such places in England where they culminated, Walsingham being another important site:

http://www.timetravel-britain.com/art...

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/...

MadgeUK wrote: "Christians in the first few centuries after Jesus' death and resurrection journeyed from Europe..."

I've always felt that the New Year should be in April, but no one has ever done anything about it. :)

That should be "resurrection according to the Gospel," not just "resurrection."

And "Jews' freedom according to the Bible." :) I know you're with me, but the issue is just the selection of words.

Sorry Rochelle. As an atheist I always have difficulty with the words I use to describe religious events of any kind! The Torah also describes, in much the same way, the Exodus of the Jews (Israelites) from Egypt, and Resurrection with a capital R means Christ's rising from the dead.

The Jewish celebrations have always made a lot more sense to me because they are based on the agricultural cycle, whereas Christian ones revolve around the birth, death and Resurrection of Christ and were imposed upon the earlier pagan agricultural dates:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_Has...

We have sites in the UK, like Lindisfarne (another pilgrimage site), where there is archeological evidence of Christian shrines for Christmas and Easter being built on top of earlier pagan ones for the new year and fertility rites.

As a fellow atheist, I don't have that problem. I don't believe in the story of Moses any more than in Jesus' resurrection. I always like to append "according to the story" or "according to the Bible," or "the Torah says," etc. I've just solved your wording problem.

I'm being a professional nitpicker, and I've interrupted your wonderful historical references.

Laurele wrote:Yes! That's why they went in Aprille.

It is also probable that April was chosen by Chaucer as the start of the Tales because of its association with April Fool's Day. The oldest record of April Fool's day is found in Chaucer's story about two fools in The Nun's Priest's Tale, which took place on March 32 (a joke in itself). It was the advent of the Julian calendar, imposed by Julius Caesar in 46BC, which made January the start of the year, although it was not imposed throughout Europe until 1582. Before that April began the year. The most popular theory about the origin of April Fool’s Day involves the French calendar reform of the sixteenth century: In 1564 France reformed its calendar, moving the start of the year from the end of March to January 1. Those who failed to keep up with the change, who stubbornly clung to the old calendar system and continued to celebrate the New Year during the week that fell between March 25th and April 1st, had jokes played on them. Pranksters would surreptitiously stick paper fish to their backs. The victims of this prank were thus called Poisson d’Avril, or April Fish—which, to this day, remains the French term for April Fools—and so the tradition was supposedly born.

Zeke wrote:I'm a bit confused by comments praising the pilgrims. It felt to me that in most, if not all, descriptions there was an antithesis showing the person in an unflattering light...

In The Canterbury Tales Chaucer satirizes the Medieval Church and those associated with it. Medieval society was centered largely around the Church and, ideally, the people were expected to understand that earthly possessions were meaningless. Chaucer sought to point out the degradation of religious ideals and the hypocrisy of the church. He skilfully exposes this in his Prologue by subtly satirising, making fools of, the religious figures by pointing out that certain characters are not as they should be. The characters that Chaucer uses to satirise the Church are the Monk, the Friar, and the Pardoner but he does not criticise them openly, he simply emphasises qualities that, although favourable to the character's general personality, are not consistent with their position in society.

Rochelle wrote: "As a fellow atheist, I don't have that problem. I don't believe in the story of Moses any more than in Jesus' resurrection. I always like to append "according to the story" or "according to the Bib...

I'm being a professional nitpicker, and I've interrupted your wonderful historical references.
"

LOL. I tend to use the word 'supposedly', when I remember:). But I never intend to upset religious folks and try to be as tactful as possible.

MadgeUK wrote: "In The Canterbury Tales Chaucer satirizes the Medieval Church..."

Didn't he get into trouble? Ridiculing the Church was not taken lightly in those days. You could become kindling.


MadgeUK wrote: "But I never intend to upset religious folks and try to be as tactful as possible. "

I don't mean to upset anyone either. Some of my best friends are religious folks. :) We just stay away from that subject.
.....................................

See, I told you March or April make a more sensible New Year's than January, but no one listens to me any more! And the Jewish calendar is even worse, with New Year's in September.(But only Orthodox Jews use it literally anyway.)

Rochelle wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "In The Canterbury Tales Chaucer satirizes the Medieval Church..."

Didn't he get into trouble? Ridiculing the Church was not taken lightly in those days."

I understand that the 'complete' CT were only published posthumously, but the Church didn't seem to suppress them, nor did he get in trouble for the individual stories circulated during his life.

So far he is only mocking the very un-Godly clergy, and not attacking any Church doctrines, so I imagine that was easier to get away with.

S. Rosemary wrote: "I was interested in how all the characters are exaggerated. The Knight is the perfect emblem of knighthood, the physician knows everything, the parson is almost saintly, the wif..."

Exaggerated characters brings Dickens to mind. A good many of his characters are over-the-top.

I understand the impulse to hedge statements about the Resurrection, but I admit to some puzzlement about the problem with "Passover celebrates Jews' freedom . . . "

I have no problem with "Holi celebrates the slaying of the demoness Holika by Vishna's disciple Prahlad," even though I don't believe in it. After all, they're celebrating it whether the events were factual or not, so the statement is true either way.

Generally I would be careful about appending "according to the Bible" on the end of such statements, because often the Bible doesn't say whatever it is. If you said, "Christmas is when the birth of Jesus is celebrated, according to the Bible," it would be inaccurate as the Bible doesn't place Jesus' birth in December (or even January, if you're Orthodox).

You might try "(Religious group) celebrates their belief in (event) on (date)."

Having never owned a Bible, I'm sure I'm inaccurate in some statements. We don't want to get deeply into religious discussions here, but thank for your input.

Rochelle wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "In The Canterbury Tales Chaucer satirizes the Medieval Church..."

Didn't he get into trouble? Ridiculing the Church was not taken lightly in those days. You could become kindling.
..."

Perhaps the Jews saw the harvest as a provision that there would be another year? Symbolically, the main events of Jesus' life and ministry align with the Jewish feasts. Many Christians believe that the rapture will coincide with Rosh Hashana. If this is the case, than fall be the end of the world, because the New Year would not start. Just thought, not an actual belief I've adopted.

Rochelle wrote: "
I've always felt that the New Year should be in April, but no one has ever done anything about it. :)"

You're a few millenia too late. The ancient (pre-Julian) Roman calendar had the year beginning in March. Thus, September is the seventh month (sept being the Latin prefix for seven) rather than, as now, the ninth month.

Can we move on, please, from the discursion on how to refer to religious events and get back to the Canterbury Tales?

Thanks.

(I don't, of course, mean to close out any discussion of religion as it directly relates to the CT; of course this is a very religiously oriented work, being a pilgrimage and involving many religious figures. But let's keep the issues focused on the text and textually related issues.)

P.S. Spell-check didn't like discursion, but I checked and the OED does, so I feel vindicated. Pfui on spell-check!

As we have commented in other classical readings, particularly Paradise Lost, earlier writers were very well versed in their mythology , particularly Roman mythology (Greek was largely lost to Western Europe for many centuries, being preserved mostly by scholars in the Ottoman Empire).

Zephirus was the god of the west wind. He was, according to most sources (there are always variations in the versions of classical mythology) the son of Aurora, goddess of the dawn, and Aeolus, chief god of the winds. The wind gods were very important in ancient Mediterranean cultures, as one would expect in cultures heavily dependent on sea travel and farming. One angry wind god at the wrong time could destroy a fleet of ships (as Aeneas and Odysseus can attest) or a season of crops.

Zephirus (per Chaucer; now more often Zephyrus) was considered a kindly wind god; hence the gentle term zephyr. He allegedly wafted Venus to shore after her birth in the sea (see Botticelli's Birth of Venus), and Achilles prayed to Boreas and Zephyrus to blow on Patroclos's
funeral pyre (though he considered the west wind not benign but blustery).

The Ram, or Aries, is one of course one of the astrological signs, starting in mid-March (it varied a bit depending on the calendar in use). But early April would have been about the mid-point of the Ram's course.

Earlier there was a short discussion about how Chaucer knew so much about the characters. On re-reading, I noticed that he tells us

"So hadde I spoken with hem everychon
That I was of hir felaweshipe anon"

(So had I spoken with them, every one,
That I was of their fellowship anon,)

So what he knows of each pilgrim is apparently a combination of what they tell him of themselves, what others (many of them are in company with others who know them)have told him of them, and what he observes himself.

I had overlooked that line earlier, but I think it is meaningful to maintain the frame of an actual pilgrimage with Chaucer joining and describing actual pilgrims.

I'll be good, O captain my captain. ;-)

Thanks for the more thorough explanation of the classical references. My edition does have annotations, but not so detailed. I knew Zephirus, but was having trouble with the Ram.

I am curious as to whether the choice of Beckett's shrine as the destination has any particular significance other than it was a popular destination and so made sense in the narrative.

I am also a little mystified how we know it was Beckett. All we have in the text so far is, "Of Engelond to Caunterbury they wende, The holy blisful martyr for to seke." Is Beckett the only martyr of significance entombed there, and therefore the only reasonable candidate for a pilgrimage? I know he was the Archbishop of Canterbury, but still . . . I had thought there would be plenty of shrines in Canterbury to pick from.

I have been rather under the impression that relics were scattered everywhere throughout England during this period, to the point where every small church had a fragment of the true cross or a piece of some martyr's jaw bone. In fact our friendly Pardoner has several of these sorts of things (I rather enjoyed that bit of juxtaposition).