Background - Churl's World

The meaning of the term ‘peasant’ as applied to later medieval society is a flexible one. It can be taken to refer to those who perform manual labour in the countryside or, in its widest sense, to those who obtained most of their living from the land. Applied to English society in the aftermath of the Black Death (1348-9), this could include wealthy yeomen as well as smallholders and wage labourers. It would also include those who gained part of their living from the land, but lived and/or worked in an urban community at other times, or perhaps all the time.

The term ‘churl’, as Chaucer uses it, is more pejorative than ‘peasant’, and appears to refer to manners and lifestyle as much as social origin. As the Wife of Bath’s hag pointedly, subversively and somewhat wickedly asserts, true gentility comes from within , not from one’s place in society or from one’s educated manners. The Reeve is a rich man, but is referred to by Geoffrey as a churl, whereas the Yeoman, also a servant working on a rural estate, is not.The Parson, who as a member of the clergy may be exempt from churl status, is the brother of an agricultural labourer. Yeoman, Ploughman (not called a churl either) and Parson are all good, honest men, whereas the Reeve and the Manciple are not. Chaucer’s underlying definition of a churl may be associated with his experience of the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. He was living above Aldgate at the time, and as a servant of John of Gaunt would have feared for the safety of himself and his family. The people he describes as ‘churls’ all present some aspect of menace, or threat, to ‘decent’ society. Although Chaucer only mentions the Peasants’ Revolt once (in The Nuns’ Priest’s Tale), these anxieties run beneath the surface of all Geoffrey’s encounters with ‘churls’.

The Black Death

The bubonic plague, spread by rat-fleas across Europe from Asia, reached England in June 1348 via the port of Melcombe Regis in Dorset. It reached London in the winter of 1348, and peaked in the following summer. By the end of 1349, when it abated, it had killed about a third of the population of England, including whole communities of religious. The plague did not go away after this - there were further major outbreaks in 1361/2 and in 1369. The second epidemic affected the wealthier classes more than the first, which affected in particular the lower classes and the clergy. The incidence of winter outbreaks in 1348 and 1361 indicates that these plagues had a pneumonic (airborne) element. The huge mortality led to severe economic and social consequences - especially shortage of labour, which led to migration of workers (to get the best wages) and to bondspeople (bound to service on the land in a particular place) leaving the manors to which they were bound. This led to government labour legislation, such as the Statute of Labourers of 1349, which attempted to prevent the movement of labouring populations and enforce feudal labour dues, as well as to force down wages. This proved entirely unworkable, and was one of the forces contributing to the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

The Peasants’ Revolt

The immediate cause of the revolt of 1381 was the Poll Tax voted by parliament in 1380, but it had its roots in the economic conditions which prevailed after the Black Death, and the repressive labour legislation which attempted to control them (to the advantage of the propertied classes). There had been a Poll Tax in 1377, but this had not been universal - that voted in 1380 taxed everyone, from 10 marks for John of Gaunt to 4d for a labourer. There had been an outbreak of popular protest against the 1377 tax, but this time opposition was stronger and better orchestrated.
The Revolt began in Kent and Essex in May 1381, when people threatened and attacked the king's collectors. A mysterious figure calling himself Wat Tyler became the most prominent of the leaders, who also included a heterodox (Lollard) priest named John Ball (seen above, addressing the rebel forces). Ball's lines
When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?
have become synonymous with the Revolt.
There were uprisings in many parts of the South and East, most notably in East Anglia (put down by the Bishop of Norwich) and Hertfordshire (against the abbey of St Albans). The Essex and Kent rebels met at Mile End, near London, and on 13 June they entered London, whilst Richard II retreated to the Tower. They made a great bonfire of books and records (the 'peasants' maintained that words had been used to enslave them). Richard II met some of the rebels at Mile End on 14th, but whilst he was there the Kentishmen under Tyler entered the Tower, and dragged out the Chancellor Simon Sudbury (Archbishop of Canterbury) and the Treasurer Sir Robert Hailes, whom they subsequently 'tried' and beheaded, then paraded their heads through the city streets on poles. There was also a massacre of the Flemish trading community. On 15th June Richard II met the rebels at Smithfield - he acceeded to the rebels' demands and granted them all free pardons. At some point during the proceedings Tyler appeared to move towards his dagger, and was cut down by the Lord Mayor, William Walworth. Richard pacified the rebels with the famous words, 'I will be your leader'.
After this, the Revolt petered out. Ringleaders were rounded up, tried and executed, and the king's promises were withdrawn - but the process of social and economic change could not be halted, and no Poll Tax was ever attempted again (until Mrs Thatcher, of course!).
Although Chaucer was living over Aldgate at the time of the Revolt, he only mentions it once (in the Nun's Priest's Tale) in passing. By contrast, his friend John Gower wrote about it at length, in Apocalyptic terms, describing the peasants as the hordes of Gog and Magog who would break out of the Gates of the North just before the end of the world. In view of the fact that many educated Englishmen really believed that the Last Days were due in the not-too-distant future, this represents a real fear, based on genuine belief. As a member of the propertied (and therefore threatened) classes in 1381, and as someone who must have witnessed the Revolt at very close quarters, Chaucer cannot have had absolutely no feelings about it. Perhaps a genuine apprehension lies behind his description of 'cherls', particularly the 'stout' ones like the Miller, who could break down doors with his head.

Home | Chaucer & his World | Discussion Points | Theory & Genre | How to Guide | Links | Sitemap

© 2002 by Dr Lesley Coote and Mr Brett Lucas