گفتمان مشقت (رعایا) و فراغت (نجبا) در قرون وسطی در حکایت‌های کنتربری

گفتمان مشقت و فراغت در دوران باستان کلاسیک توسط هزیود که کار را مصیبت می‌دانست و مکتب ارسطویی که ارزش کار را نادیده می‌گرفتند، نظریه‌پردازی شده است. ارسطو کار را به بردگان نسبت می‌داد و در مقابل، «فراغت نجبا» را به عنوان الگوی زندگی آرمانی می‌ستود. با ظهور مسیحیت نظریه‌ی کار در قرون وسطای متقدم توسط بنیانگزاران کلیسا که کار را ناشی از هبوط انسان و کفاره گناه نخستین می‌دانستند، به وجود آمد. در قرون وسطای متاخر جنگ‌های طولانی، قحطی‌ها و طاعون سبب کمبود نیروی کار شد و ارزش کار و کارگر بالا رفت. نگرش به کار تغییر کرد و کار فضیلت شمرده شد، به ویژه کاری که در جهت تولید غذا باشد. با این‌حال، طبقه روحانیت رویکرد متناقضی در مورد کار داشتند. آنها به لحاظ نظری و دینی کار را فضیلت می‌شمردند، ولی در عمل کار تولیدی را به عهده رعیت می‌گذاشتند. برای حل این تناقض، نهاد روحانیت بر کار فکری عبادی و امساک خود تاکید می‌کردند که در حکایت‌های کنتربری قصور اخلاقی این رویکرد هجو شده است.

the medieval discourse of labor and (noble) idleness in the canterbury tales

introduction: the discourse of labor (and idleness) is theorized in ancient classicaltimes by hesiod who regarded labor as an affliction, and the aris tocratic plato-aris totelian circle of thought who ignored its value since they attributed it to theslaves, celebrating ins tead the man’s ‘noble idleness’. the theory of labor developedin the medieval period by the ambivalent church fathers who related it tothe fall of man, and the consequent s trife as penance. in the late medieval, however,the attitude to labor changed dramatically, as is manifes ted in the thoughtsof late medieval church fathers such as thomas aquinas, who valued labor as avirtue, fores talling the more secularized renaissance, which is anticipated in chaucer’scanterbury tales.background of the s tudy: with the advent of chris tianity, the decline of theancient slavery sys tem and the rise of the feudalis t sys tem in europe, attitudes tolabor and wealth were modified. chris tianity broke radically with the previousview of labor, yet labor was s till seen as a punishment for the fall of man. however,in the late fourteenth century england the es tate of the clergy encountereda paradoxical attitude towards labor. on the one hand, according to the biblicalins tructions, labor is necessary and virtuous, and idleness or sloth is a deadly sin,on the other hand, this praiseworthy labor is allotted to the peasant es tate, leavingthe role of the clergy s till uncertain. the clergy are mos tly consumers rather thanproducers. methodology: in late medieval england, the development of the middle classand the rise of mercantilis m on the one hand, and the long futile wars, famine,and death tolls caused by the plagues on the other hand secularized europe andhighlighted the value of laboring bodies. attitudes to labor changed, especiallylabor for food production. the attitude of the clergy, however, was paradoxicaltowards labor. according to the chris tian doctrine and ethics, work was a virtue,but practically in the feudal sys tem of the medieval period manual work was allottedto the peasants. to cope with this ideological flaw, the clergy triumphedin their (non-productive) clerical labor and services in their meditative and asceticlives. failure in achieving these ideals is satirized by the pilgrim-chaucer’shighlighting the significance of food and food-makers. accordingly, labor and theimages of labor are praised in the “general prologue” as useful in contras t withthe idleness or uneconomic labors of the clergy. the praise is often applied tothose pilgrims who are involved in productive labor, or more specifically, in foodproduction, namely, the plowman, the miller, and the cook. in connection withfood production, the motifs of eating, consumption, and gluttony are also related,to the medieval mores.conclusion: chaucer cons tructs binaries in the “general prologue”, such as theparson-plowman / the summoner-pardoner binary that dis tinguishes betweenthe two groups of ideal bodies and the idle ones. the pious parson-plowmanbrotherhood, their economic function and practice, and their relation to societyand nature are in contras t with the summoner-pardoner connection, withtheir unnatural fellowship and chrematis tic approach to society. the dis tinctionis epitomic of the other occupations in the “general prologue”, in which they arecontras ted in their economic versus chrematis tic attitudes to life and society. thatis, their productive properties are useful and economic for both the agent and thesociety versus non-productive, exploitative, chrematis tic, defunct, or unnecessaryoccupations, without any service for the welfare of the society.