Chapter XXIV CHAUCER—­AT THE TABARD INN

CHAUCER begins his description of the people who were gathered at the Tabard Inn with the knight, who was the highest in rank among them.

“A knight there was, and that a worthy man, . . . . . .  And though he was worthy he was wise, And of his port as meek as any maid.  He never yet no villainy ne’er said In all his life unto no manner wight; He was a very perfect, gentle knight.”

Yet he was no knight of romance or fairy tale, but a good honest English gentleman who had fought for his King.  His coat was of fustian and was stained with rust from his armor, for he had just come back from fighting, and was still clad in his war-worn clothes.  “His horse was good, but he ne was gay.”

With the knight was his son, a young squire of twenty years.  He was gay and handsome, with curling hair and comely face.  His clothes were in the latest fashion, gayly embroidered.  He sat his horse well and guided it with ease.  He was merry and careless and clever too, for he could joust and dance, sing and play, read and write, and indeed do everything as a young squire should.  Yet with it all “courteous he was, lowly and serviceable.”

With these two came their servant, a yeoman, clad in hood of green, and carrying besides many other weapons a “mighty bow.”

As was natural in a gathering such as this, monks and friars and their like figured largely.  There was a monk, a worldly man, fond of dress, fond of hunting, fond of a good dinner; and a friar even more worldly and pleasure-loving.  There was a pardoner, a man who sold pardons to those who had done wrong, and a sumpnour or summoner, who was so ugly and vile that children were afraid of him.  A summoner was a person who went to summon or call people to appear before the Church courts when they had done wrong.  He was a much-hated person, and both he and the pardoner were great rogues and cheats and had no love for each other.  There was also a poor parson.

All these, except the poor parson, Chaucer holds up to scorn because he had met many such in real life who, under the pretense of religion, lived bad lives.  But that it was not the Church that he scorned or any who were truly good he shows by his picture of the poor parson.  He was poor in worldly goods:—­

“But rich he was in holy thought and work, He was also a learned man, a clerk That Christ’s gospel truly would preach, His parishioners devoutly would he teach; Benign he was and wonder diligent, And in adversity full patient. . . . . .  Wide was his parish, and houses far asunder, But he left naught for rain nor thunder In sickness nor in mischief to visit The farthest of his parish, great or lite* Upon his feet, and in his hand a staff.  The noble ensample to his sheep he gave, That first he wrought, and afterward he taught.”

    Little.