Lehigh University

Lehigh Preserve
Theses and Dissertations

1963

Geoffrey Chaucer and religious reform

Talmadge B. Pierce Jr.
Lehigh University

Follow this and additional works at: https://preserve.lehigh.edu/etd

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons

Recommended Citation
Pierce, Talmadge B. Jr., "Geoffrey Chaucer and religious reform" (1963). Theses and Dissertations. 3160.
https://preserve.lehigh.edu/etd/3160

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an
authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact preserve@lehigh.edu.
 ' ·.1'.r· ,,
. .... ....... ,,
" ... ,,

·~

./

/ \:
. ~-

. -- --'~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- -- - - - -·-- . -·- -- - - --·- . - - - --- - ------'I

i
'
..
• - - -- ----·----~ .

,, ..
GEOFFIIBY CHAUCJlER AND RELIGIOUS REFORM .

,/"I ,.
'

by

Talmadge Burto n Pierc e, Jr. ~

/i

/
/

··1

·'
A Thesi s
Prese nted to the Gradu ate Facul ty

,·
of Lehig h Univ ersity
-.:::.
in Candi dacy for the Degre e of
•
Maste r of A.rt s

,. >f'.
~ ~-:1,
. ~" · \'.
;fl ·,.
, I

':\

~-.l.
I,·

.. ....
1963.
·-;.-"··
.. '·
:-.,r,

·\.;_'
·• ·.·';f
·'-.i
:.
' •' .. ,. ~· : ...
....
. _

,;

' ~ • !; " r',.

 \
(

11
./
<.._.·J• .'
..
'
··-:s
j ·:
.

..
I• ·,,-~

,, .

:•·

. /
. This thesis is a©cepted and app~oved in partial
I
fulfillmen t of the requireme nts for the degree of
Master of .Arts.

·.,
. ' ..
' .

of the Departmen t

.~.

.•

·,:

.,

"

I ••..
(
 Ir- , .
..
,
.I

1.11
\
. .•: ,.;

.
.
·~

'
\

C01'TTENTS ,_ j
J/

il

page
'

Certificate of Approval 11

Abstract iv

I The Fourteentl1-Ce11tury Reform Issue 1

.1
I
:II Vvyclif and his Inflt1ence on Che.ucer . I

. i

(>

lII The View of Chaucer as a Radical Reformer 21

I,
\
\
:IV' The View of Chaucer as a Skeptice.1,r Objective Reporter 30

V Chaucer, a Sincere Cjr11tributor to Religious Reform 40

Footnotes 5 c:
. ;.,q:

List of Works Consulted

.,

Vita
\

.r

t-:~~. .":.'
,d:

.:ir.·

,.
·r.
,• ~· '!

·4

·., _; ·'·. •···

 i

l
I
r;
1v. •l

ti
.,

.•:
,·-.
'-

ABSTRACT

The deplora ble moral state of the fourtee nth-

century church, atteste d to. by the ~hurch 's fruit-
less attemp ts to correc t existin g abuses , demand ed .• :..-·

an intere st in reform . Chauce r's attitud es tov1ard

, religio us reform \vere undoubt ·_edly affecte d by his

associa tion with the brillia nt Wyclif, an outspok en

advoca te of conser vative orthodo xy. In spite of
"
Chauce r's sympath y vri th the Vlyclif i te positio n, he
cannot proper ly be viewed as a Lollard champi on or
- a ferven t forerun ner of the Reform ation. On the
other hand, it is not correc t to consid er him a
convic tionles s, skeptic al child of politic al exped-
·"
iencj-, wl10 merely reporte d on the co1~:tem porury
{

religio us scene. Histor i~al and literar y evidenc e

indicat es that Chauce r, a sincere conser vative, was
concern ed about the corrup tion of the church and
unv1itt in5ly contrib uted to the cause of religio us·
reform vrith his biting irony.

... . *-I

"

''\:
'·
!
'
\
\
~.

,r ·;· •:t •. '

 ., r

-Ch apte r I .'f

THE FOURTEENTH-CENTURY REFORl·1 ISSUE

r
From the fou rtee nth cen tury to the pre sen t, the adm irer
'
s
of Geo ffre y Cha uce r hav e hel d to a rem ark abl y vrid e ran ge of
opi nio ns on the nat ure of his att itu de tow ard rel igi ous
refo rm. It is a stri kin g trib ute to the she er gen ius of
the poe t tha t per son s of gre atly div erg ent rel igi ous , po liti cal ,
and phi los oph ica l poi nts of view hav e mu tua lly dra wn sup por t
for the ir pos itio ns from Cha uce r's wri tin gs. To ref orm ers ,
as we ll as to sch ola rs rem ove d by cen tur ies from the Ref orm -
atio n, Cha uce r has app ear ed to be a hot -he arte d adv oca te of·
swe epin g mea sur es to pur ge the chu rch of his day of the evi ls
of the pap acy and the abu ses of the cle rgy in gen era l. By
con tra st, the re are to b,e fou nd in the sch ool of mod ern
Che .uce rian cri tici sm tho se who hav e dis cov ere d a s}~ ept ical ,
..
ind iffe ren t Cha uce r, who cal lou sly but che erf ull y rec ord ed
the pas sin 5 sce ne abo ut him . If suc h opp osin g and ~~t rem e
/

con cep ts of a ma n's rel igi ous pos tur e can be rea son 3bl y
'·

jus tifi ed by the ir pro pon ent s (as is unq ues tion abl y the
cas e), the n i~ wou ld seem onl y log ica l to loo k to a mid dle
g:ro und , a med ian po int , to det erm ine the man 's tru e pos itio n
:>.
in reg ard to rel igi ous refo rm. It is the pur pos e of thi s
pap er to exa min e the se con tras ting vie wp oin ts on Cha uce r's
att itu de tow ard the con diti on of the chu rch in the lig ht of
(1) th.e de!l land for an int ere st in refo rm tha t was pre sse d

/
\
I

\
 11·1 •• •

upon him by the dep lora ble mor al stat e of the con tem pora ry
I
. ---· ----··---- -~-- -··-· ~ --- --~- -- .. .
chu1~ch and (2) the effe ct on him of the infl uen ce of the

bri llia nt ant i-pa pist sch olar , Jobn Wy clif , in the dev elop -
ment of his atti tud e tow ard reli gio us refo rm. On the bas is
>'

\ .
of thes e con side rati ons 1 t wil
.
.. l be dem onst re.te d tha t wha t

has been rega rded as Cha uce r's fla ir fo~ refo rm may wel l have
been only a reli gio us con serv atis m. On the oth er han d, his
.,

stin gin g, freq uen tly ,cau stic sati re, rath er tl1a.r1 refl ecti ng
.,,

a deta che d ind iffe re~ ce to 'Cu rren t ecc lesi as,t ical irre gul ar-

1 ties , app ears to .. _!)ave bee n an art isti c dev ice wp.i ch, thou gh

me~ely employed by Cha ucer to disg uise his prob ing awa rene ss
of the chu rch' s true stat e, beca me a pot ent forc e for
\
reli gio us refo rm with out con scio us desi gn on the poe t's
par t •
•4. brie f s-ur vey of exis ting circ ums tanc es in the fou r-

teen th-c entu ry chu rch read ily rev eals a clim ate con duc ive
.to an inte res t in refo rm on the par t of an obse rver , \vi th

the acu ity and insi 5ht of Cha ucer . It;i s not s~r pris ing \
'tha t the evid enc e 1 s- par ticu larl y damn1·ng among thos e cle rica l
-
·off ices
., and ins titu tion s from \vhi ch Cl1a ucer dre11 his mor e
• '' ' ••• ,. 'I!'

tain ted cha ract ers. In gen eral the cali ber of the ent ire
prie stho od ~as piti ful ly low , as i i ind icat ed by the
com plai nt rest ster ed in arti cle s pres ente d by the Uni vers ity
~
. . . .
.

of Oxfo1')d t_o !{in g Hen ry V aga inst the "un disc ipli ned and
\ '
\_ '(

unle arne d .crowd whi ch dai ly ~re sse d· to take sacr ed ord ers. 111 :)
I

~, :.:

Arc hbis hop Peck ham ' s well -lrno wn cons rti tuti on of 128 1 offe rs

I '

' I--< ,. t •' .,. '

i
,.,,
j
:..,_... I
.,.__,,·

..,-

\ \
l
'\

"
. h ... , ;'~'" ,. .
 - ;1.., .. ,:i: -·.:c · -·· ·. · ·· \.

'· . • ·i ..
,-
1' a· sim ilar indi ctm ent· : "The igno ranc e of · the prie sts cas ts
. the peopl_e into the ·d1 tch of erro r; and the f~....J -..V-- -A..:p ..._~- ------+ ------- -,--..,. ,..---- --~
\

I
lear nin g .of the -cle rgy , who are bidd en to ins truc t the
'\
\

fait hf4 1 in the Cat holi c fait h, som etim es tend eth rath er to
erro r than sou n~ doc trin e. "2 Na· tura lly, the unt rain ed prie st-- • I

hoo d fel l vict im to such vic es as gree d, ~_e lf-se ekin g, con - 1..~

!~ ',

tem pt for aut hor ity, the eva sion of the disc ipli ne of '

pri est ly vow s, and fina lly~ com plet e wor ldli nes s.
~

T.he app allin g exte nt of _the fail ing s of .the reli gio us

\ of Cr1au-cer' s time is hin ted at in this cry of an Eng lish

prea c9'e l\~ "Our star s, that is our cler gy, have so fall en from
\ .

b
the heig ht of cle rica l dig nity , as from heav en to ear th,
·(,

tha t they hav e nou ght but ear thly wisd om, lovi ng ear th,
•thi nki ng of ear th, spea king of ear th •••• Beh old among_
i

them , thes e day s, no tons u~e on the hea d, no garm ent of

reli gio n, no res trai nt in spee ch~ no sob ~iet y in food , po
mod esty ~n ges ture s, nor~ eve n con tine nce in dee ds. u3. Such
sca thin g cha rges were not rese rve d ms.r ely f9r common par ish
~ .

"'
, ._ ·.,p ries ts, but even the bi shop s were fier cely at tack ed by
• •
,t .. ,,

.
theo log ians such as· Dr. John Brom yard , a pill ar- of orih odo xy
_,

at both Oxf ord and Cam brid ge, who in his Summa Pred ican tium
opp osed the bru tal lust ing s, --),the flee cin g of the poo r,
).

the flat teri ng of the rich , ·and the dem ons trat ions · of prid e
and gre edin ess among thes e hig h chu rchm en.4
\
It is· to be exp ecte d tha t the app oint ees of such un-
-
ded icat ed off icia ls shou ld exc eed the ir sup erio rs in ~he ir
J. "

....... .... •
J
 . I

!l u.nsavory activities. Thus, .the appar1tors or summoners,

'\.

I ~

· 11. .

\ '

- - - ~_ _ 1ntroduced ___ 1n.to England in the thirteenth _ century, had be-

•
I ,J{ --.,,

come a general problem by the following century. ·Although

their original function as officials of the various eccles-
iastical courts made them responsible for the serving of j

summons, the appearing in court of th~ summoned, and the pro-

. ••,\
\ er
bating, of wills, they had succumbed to the lure of graft to
I \.

. / \

such an extent by th,e, erf of\ the fourteenth century that they
were largely· engaged in prey·ing on the people, burdening
the country clergy, and making false accusations for their
own profit. So undesirable were the·se court officers that
in 1377 in Winchester and in 1383 in Hereford, a group of
·~ )
~
criminals killed an apparitor. Ecclesiastical records
dating from 1309-1365 mention several cases of summoners
being removed from office for various irregularities, in-
cluding the makin~ of false accusations of crime.5
ft''' .
,_,; That Chaucer was aware of the depth of this problem
seems evident in his depict ion of the sorry Su::nmoner
. of the
..

C~nterbury Tales, who is rivaled in depravity only by the

c::: '~
""
Pard):,ner, a representative of yet ano.ther notorious group
)

of church-related parasites. In spi~e of the fact that the

pardoners were 11¢ensed by the church to offer the people
nothing more than indulgences for the satisfaction of·sin
. I
....
and to ask alms humbly,,these clerics with their false relics
r

claimed power to forgive any sin and to f~ee the dead from
'
'
t
purgatory or even hell. Pope Boniface IX (1389-1404) made
.! •
t
! '>
i
I
. I

·,,

.
,.
. r·~
\
 ,.
.,, . ·1

' /)

'

this scandal the subject of a pontifica l letter to the church,

.
stating that the pardoners "dispense w1 th a11· eccles1as t~cal

license, and go ·from village to village, making speeches,

...
showing relics, and selling pardon •••• 6 11

Testimony to the fact that duri~g this period the mount-

ing interest in reform had spread beyond a few vocal zealots r.·

is offered from records of the church's attempts to expose

and curb irregular ities. In a collection of church decrees,

Sacrorum concilioru m ••. collectio, Vol. XXVI (1348, 1368,

1374), th& abuses and deceits of the ·pardoners among simple
people were deplored e.nd a requireme nt imposed u1Jon these,

~en tor authoriza tion from their arc~ish~p s or bishops.7

A monotonous report of clerical shortcomin gs is found in a

' random sampling ·of the following visitation s: to Norwich

city, 1333, where ten ~embers of the clergy were accused of

' 8
incontinen cy; to Exeter Ca thedrs.l, 1330, wh~-r~·· ·all types
'

of unrebuked irreverenc e were discovered ;9 to the priory

- ~

of Selbourne ; 1388, where many ~f- the monks were,~yd to be

./1
1
frivolous, e2cpenslve ly-dressed sportsmen; O and to H·~reford,

1397, where among 281 parishes more than 60 rectors, vicars,

~
and chaplains were denounced as fornicato rs and adulterers .11
' 1 ~

No less a deterrent to evil than the papal bull was brought

into play against. the powerful friars in the iBsu.ance of,.,

the Super Ca.thedrum of 1300 and the Dudum of 1311, which were

designed to correct the abuses of the "limi tours" and to

/
 \ .. "
~' ... ,

,,JI' ',,,,,-,,,,, ,•Q

impose limitat ions upon them in the hearing of confess ion,·

in' preach ing, and.in burial of the dead.12 ..

.. With the deterio ration of their apirttu al leaders hip, '

J'

it would natura lly follow that the laity found it difficu lt

to display a proper reveren ce at religio us.fun ctions of
.
variou s sorts. This led to synoda l decrees of the type pro-
. ....

.
claimed by Bishop Langham of Ely in 1364, which directe d his
archdea cons and parish clergy to forbid their/p arishe s to
\
fight \\Ti th banner -poles for precede nce at the annual vis-
itation and venera tion of mother church . 1 ~ Perhap s the most.
blatan t offense s of this nature occurre d at the religio us
--
pilgrim ages, one of which Chauce r aptly chose a's a vehicle
~

fbr·por traying his sometim es unsavor y charac ters on the

Canterb ury journey " Just sevente en years before Chauce r's·.
pilgrim age, when the bishop of tendon w2s asked to bless a
band or· pllgri1 ns~ he felt ·cons.tr ained to warn them that the
"promis ed Plenary Indulge nce would be u.seles s to ·them unless

they went in a more revere nt spirit. 1114 . The vivid descrip -

0

tion of an actual Canterb ury pilgrim age, given by the Lollard

Thorpe just ten years after Chauce r's accoun t, lends emphas is
to the need for improve ment in the conduc t of the partic-

ipants :
Such fond people waste blamef ully God's
\ goods on their vain pilgrim ages, spendin g their
goods u1Jon viciou s hostel ries, which are oft ·
unclea n vromen. of. their bocties •.. they will ordaine
.with th~m before , to have with them both men and
women that can well sing wanton songes, and some
I

' '
I

..,

·•
.~·
)
 . - ···- ,. • . • . , • • . , • ., .... , • • . , . • , ,, :·• • • •'•. -,, "-' ., ' '"·"' .-~ ' ..• ~. . .,. . . .:.,~ ... jf,·"!"- ./,.·_·_;;. ,;.._,.;, .-,_, ,:•,;,_·";··.,,L>·.:•, ,· .. ~:; i,.,,.,.~ •. j

other pilgrimes will have with them bagge pipes;

so- th2.t everie to"ime that they come through, .,
.I
what with the noise of their singing, and with
the sound of their piping, and with the jangling
of their Canterbur ie bels, and with the barking ,.,,
out of dogges after them, that they make more
·i
noise, than if the king came there away, wf~h all~ .i
his clarions, and many other minstrels ••••
I
I>

I
With the national religious life in England so hope-
lessly honey-com bed with wholesale ~orruption , 1 t would,. appear
I
I
that external assistance might be forth-comi ng from the head
of the church in Rome; however the papacy was able to offer·
only a pathetic object lesson in the universal need for
religious reform by falling victim ta> the Great Schism of
1378. Thus, as if to further bewilder the devout, emerged
the unsettling pi~ture of the two rival popes, Urban VI and
Clement VII, hurling their anathemas at each other across
the Alps. To recognize one of the popes was to be ex-
/
communica ted by the other.~ The height of this absurdity was
reached in 1382 when the militant young Bishop of Norwich
organized a crusade against France, offering religious
dispensat ions to all who would give contributi ons. Pope
.._

Urban hear·t11y supported the venture with ·h:ts granting of

.........
liberal indulgenc es to volunteers who_would engage in the
.,/ J

' in Europe by pillaging

crusade against Clement's followers
)
and seizing their towns.16 ~- ,,._,./
f \
I

Since Chaucer was at this very time enjoying.o ne of~

,serie,s of poti ti cal appointme nts 1n England, the decidedly
political character of the papa·1 controvers y would .certainly
7-
.
8

I -- , - - - --- - - -- -
hav e cau~ ed his atte ntio n to be focu s~d on this asp ect of the ~
.
·rel i~io us dile mma of the cen tury . , Thi s was the era in whi ch I .

Eng l'and 's spi rit of nati ona lism was find ing exp ress ion in
her .rel atio ns with the pap acy . 'v/hen in 1309 the· sea t of the
pap acy had bee n mov ed to Avig non a,nd the pop e had beco me

the crea ture of the Fren ch kin g, Eng lish hatr ed of Fran ce
had resu lted in a dec ided b~e ach in her loy alty to -the
)
pap acy . The wea knes s of the pop es duri ng the ''Ba bylo nian
cap tivi ty" at Avig non pe_rmi tted the pap al cou rts to beco me
cen ters of luxu ry and vice . To sup por t such an exp ensi ve
~ca le of livi ng, the chu rch foun d 1 t nec essa ry to sel l l1er
/
i pref erm ents . In Eng land the chu rch owned more thaf t on~ thir d
of the ·lan d of the real m and rece ived in due s and offe ring s
.an inco me amo unti ng to t,11 ce the size of the kin g's reve nue .
. ~

Wnen Fren chm en and Ital ian s wer e pre ferr ed to the ,hc hes t
. '.~.._.

).l.v ings in Eng land , only to spen d the ir inco.,mes abro ad,
\
~flG.i_i sh nat ion al prid e was stun g. The stin g dev elop ed into
d~e p inju ry when the Fren ch pop e, the las t cou rt of app eals
in: cano
,, n law , set Etsid e. dec isio ns o:f the Eng lish cou rts.
~' .•

Con sequ entl y, in 1351 the Sta tute of Pro viso rs was pass e~,
end ing the Fren ch and Ital ian pref erm ents , and in 1353 came • ... . 1.-.

the Sta~ ute of Prae mur ti~e , whi ch abro gate d the veto of the

pop e. 1 7 Alth ctug h the b;,; is of· this agi tati on was pol itic al,

the reli gio us auth orit y of the chu rch was con side rabl y
I
_,
shak en Jin Eng land even befo re the nea rly crus hing J'ql. ow of
~Ii J
._.tJJ'
...
the Gre at Sch ism. ~
··""'·

/''
. ..,

\_
. . .
 <(

9
)

,. 'f,'

To comple te the.pic ture of the demora lization of the

church stands the consid erable bulk of condem natory test-
'
imony in contem porary literat ure. The decaden ce of the church
.,

is indicat ed by the abundan ce and variety of popula r

criticis m; her impoten ce is obviou s from the fact that her
critics , though loud~ seem fearles s of reprisa l.- Surely
no attack on the sins of t~e clergy is bolder than that of
. ! ;1 ' ~ .
Chauce r 1n his unflatt ering presen tations of the worldly Monk,
the blackm ailing Summoner, the graspin g Fr J. ar, o.r the fra 1.1d-
ulent Pardon er of the Cant·er bury Tales. In additio n, much
of the Chauce rian apocryp ha, employ ed so vigoro usly by
·sixtee nth-cen tury reform ers ( see page 25, below) , deals with
..
the frailti es of churchm en: Jack Upland is a bitter prose
satire on friars, Pilgrim '~ Tale is a diatrib e agains t the
Church
#
of Rome, ,and the Plowma n's Tale amounts to a viciou s
Lollard attack on the Cathol ic clergy in genera l.18 The
~· .#

Roman de la Rose by Jean de Meun abounds in passag es·

satiriz ing the foibles of friars
. ,\,. and other religio us.
Langlan d express es a · strong ho ~ 1 ty toward friars by
\ ..
picturi ng
.. one as a Doctor of Di v1n1 ty, who after preachi ng ·
:~

on contine nce, makes his way through a,,rowd of pilgrim s

and beggar s to sit at the chief table and "astoni sh everyon e

by his trenche r-work ." 19 Nearly one-th ird of Gower' s Vox

._
,
.. .. ~
.· ·J
\
Claman tis is devoted to invect ives.ag ainst the church . -,
His . · ....··

I
...
t '' • theme •
1S that the times are out of joint; the clergy are
,

:•·

1gnora nt and immora l; and p~elate s do not correc t ·them

( /

\
'l
"I •II'

'
" .f ,,

) /-- \.,
~

I
 10
.I

be~a use they are ·no bett er them selve ~. He obse rves that
m~nks are freq uent ly· unch a.sje ; nuns are somet1mesc>. deba ·uche d
/ /

·by ,off icia l visi tors ; and fria rs meri ace,t he puri ty of fami ly
0 C)

life .20 In._h 1s\M iro1r de l'omm e Gowe r refl ects some thing
~,.,
) .
of the popu lar f~el ing agai nst hyp ocri tica l cler ics in such
line s as thes e/fro m "A Fi sh Out of Wate r":<
(
',

\
.\
That monk is not a good cloi ster er
'Who is made keep er or sene scha l
......./ Of some~ offi ce whic h is outs ide •••
Such a k·eeper,. to spea k trut h,
The cloi ster had bett er driv e out than keep ,
Sin e he take s from othe rs thei r prof it.
Th~ poeiµ "A Gr~ y Fria r" from the same work evin ces a bi t-1:ng:
sarca sm:
Oh, how the fria r beha ves hims elf
'When he comes to the hous e of a poor man! ,r

Oh, well he knows how to prea chJ .

Though t·he woman has littl e or noth ing,
No less for that does he refr ain
From claim ing, pray ing, adju ring ;
The halfp enny he take s if ther e's no penn y,
Even the only egg the~ e 1~ for supp er-
He· has to have some thing . 1
John of Read ing, even more incen sed·, stat es in his Chro nica
of 1354 that the enti re ·orde r of Men dican ts ough t to be
'I \,.._ .............

burn ed for here sy. ~

In addi tion to the liter atur e of veri fiab le
auth orsh ip, a'la rge body of folk lore of German, Ital ian,
Fren ch, and Eng lish orig in echo es the same damn ing them e of
c9rr µpti on in spir itua l high plac es.
Evid ~nce that the them e~wa s not a mere sens atio nal,
at~e ntio n-ca tchi ng devi ce employed by the 11 t·era ture of the
... ,_

·• time s may be indi cate d by the fact that John Wyc lif, the
\
• :I'
(

'·

i .
,.
I, f
)
 11

.,
·eminent Oxford scholar, could press the most devastating.
of attacks against the church with relatively little.
- opposition. He freely referred to the pope in rather un-
,,>

complimentary terms ranging from "a simple idiot" to "the

···-·
· 22
head vicar of the fiend." His opposition to many
dogmas and'trad1tions of the church was just as severe as
his scathing denunciation of members of the clergy. Yet,
,,,

for all these indications of radicalism he is properly ·-%

considered a conservative on the contemporary religious

'·

scene in his relentless drive toward a return to the pris-

tine purity of the early church. It is in this light that
his tremendous influence upo~ Chaucer must be e~aluated;
for it was he, more than any other single being or force, .•.

who aroused the interest of the poet in the reform issue

and lured him toward a conservative position in matters
e c·c1e. si as ti cal.
. :. . .

.. :

.'

·-
I .. .

,..
·' 'I"

·,

,.
f. ·- N.

-·
.:.,:(:·.·,. .,
.. '
.,
) ;.
). :-:'.".·

I-••!

.IJ . •
 '. ! '.- ! ,,, . ,_, . • • • ·., .• ~- ' ',' : . •·. '. ,. ,· ·~ •. '.' . •. . ,. '
.,
b

-
12

.)·
.

.-...-
.. :-:
Chap ter II .

WYCLIF AND HIS INFLUENCE ON CHAUCER .i

In spit e of the fact that Wyc lif was e~co mmu nicat ed fQr
here sy befo re his deat h of apop lexy in 13.84 and that the
Coun cil of Cons tance in 1415 decr eed that his rema ins be dis- !
j
. ,I
inte rred for burn ing, the basi s of his appe al for refor m was
not the intro duct ion of nove l relig ious conc epts , but rath er
' J

the cond emna tion of the sins of the prie stho od and the revi val
of negl ecte d teac hing s and prac tice s of the chur ch. out-
i,
spok en to an asto nish ing degr ee, he made a trem endo us impa ct
on the mind s of sinc ere inte llec tual s like Chau cer by his
insi sten ce upon a stri ct ortho doxy draw n from Bibl ical pre-
/
cept s. Sinc e the term "her etic" app_ ears to hsve been all-
incl usiv e in \vyc lif's day, it is diff icul t to judg e the
'
degr ee of his vari ance with the view s of the chur ch in the
vagu e ligh t of a four te enth -cen tury papa l ban.
1

Even among
mo.d ern-d ay scho lars who view Wyc l1f as a here tic, it must
/

/J be conc eded that his opin ions were agre eabl e to good churc hmen
· in the fold .l Many of Wyc lif's frien ds at Oxfo rd were con-
=-~.· ~ '"" . -·
'-..,.,-1

. vinc ed that he was a 'com plete ly ortho dox theo logi an, as is
evid ence d by the lame nt ex~r esse d by the grou p twen ty year s

afte r his deat h: "God defe nd that our prel ates shou ld have ..

cond emne d so goo.d a man for a here tic. u2 Wi tlt the common
•\ ·
'"·

peop le as w~ll , the Oxflord scho lar and his arde nt follo wers ,
- the· Loll ards , foun d favo r to such a degr ee that four teen th-

---:-:.

'..I. '
.. ,

.. ·,

•.
\ . I.
 . id & UL .11.t.liil&iJJJJL&........i!LlL&.Lt .JJX.Kifa.J.JJUi.11J.,LJll!iU.iJJ,J
' . ,t.,Jl

, .

13
' \
i.·~

·\

9:·•.

,. ·1. ce nt ur y ch ro ni cle rs we re pro vo ke d to st at e: "In - ·-1~ __,:._

th os e da ys
th at se ct was he ld in th e gr ea te st ho no ur an d
mu lti pl ied so
th at yo u co uld sc ar ce me et two men by th e way wh ero
was no t a di sc ip le of W yc lif fe. ;" an d Lo nd on ci tiz
f on e
l
'
en s we re
. \1
I
: I

sp ok en of as "u nb eli ev ing tow ard s God an dl' the

tra di tio np of
th ei r fa th er s, su pp or ter s of the Lo lle .rd s. "3
Su ch po pu lar ity
h~ rd ly wo uld ha ve be en af fo rd ed a wi ld- ey ed he re
1

tic .
W yc lif 's re je ct io n of th e do ctr in e~ of tra ns ~b sta
" nt .,_
ia tio n,
co ri~ ide r~ d by th e ch ur ch as hi s mo st da rin g he re
sy , se rv es to
.i
ill us tra te hi s co ns er va tii e po sit io n. In the fi . .I
rs t pla c~ , the
.
do ctr in e ha d no t be en in co rp or ate d in to th e dogma
'
;

of the
JRoman ch ur ch un til . th e Fo ur th La ter an · Co un cil
of 12 15 . The
op po sit io n of \vy cli f is ap tly de pi cte d by the his
/
tor ·1a n
Bu rro ws : "He ca rri es th e wa r·i nt o th e en em ies '
co un try . They
ar e th e he re tic s, he -th e or tho do x. He is the fo
llo we r of
f:'A-

Jer om e, Am bro se, Au gu st~ ne an d ot he r Sa in ts

of Sc rip tu re ,
...
of rev ell \\t ,io n, an d of re as on ... . Hi s at ta ck on i '
the dogma of\
tra ns ub sta nti ,3. tio n wa s on e so co nc en tra ted ,
t:ind de liv er ed
from so many sid es , th at the sc ho la sti c co nc ep tio
n wa s sh ak en
to 1 ts ve ry fo un da tio n. ,,4 To qu es tio n th e ab
ili ty · of im mo ral
. \
pr ie sts to pe rfo rm mi ra cle s at the Eu ch ar ist
or ·even h~ ar
co nf es sio ns ac ce pta Cl y ha rd ly in di ca te s a de
pa rtu re f~ m the
fa ith . Ne ith er ca n W yc lif be br ou gh t in to se rio us qu es
tio n
fo r de fy ing th e au th or ity of th e po pe to ex co mm
un ica te in
vie w of th e lam en tab le str ug gl e fo r po we r be tw ee
~ Cl em en t
• •
·" an d Ur ba n. Pe rh ap s more tha n an yt· hin g el se ,
di
it ·was th e att em pt
,
..

i
,. ~
•• j
i:

'·"
'~ ' :.

•
 . ··-· ,. ,, . -
'
-~'

__
..,
14
..'
.f

' '
to take actio n on reform matte rs ~stea d of merel y debat ing
·---~---~,~
.1

them, that broug ht upon Wycl1 f '-s head the curse of the churc h
. ........_,_.
,.,

_11,·, and the appro bat~o n of the peopl e. ...

~-

It is to be expec-""- ted that effor ts to discr edit Wycl if

would exten d towar d the band of noble s known as the Lolla rd
Knigh ts, who were among his-s taunc h suppo r~ers . In con-
--
tradi ction to monk ish chron icler· s who refer red to these
.
men as the type who took the Holy Sacra ment home to eat ,1

with oyste rs, s~and s the fact that devou t Chris tians named
them as execu tors of their wills ; the Duche ss of York
namin g Cliff ord and Stury , and Sir Guich ard d 1 Angle appoi nt-
ing Cliff ord, Nevi lle, and Clanv owe. - Furth ermo re, Sir Lewis

Cliff ord was sent by the king as an amba ssado r to Paris in

1391 to persu ade Charl es VI to aband on a proje cted ex-
pedit ion again st Bonif ace IX. Such a tickl ish missi on
would hardl y hsve been ent~u sted to a h~i c. Nothi ng
.,

unort hodox appea rs in the life of Sir Rich~ rd Stury in

his long- time
/'~ -
conne c~ion s with the court , which were often
in the form of diplom ati-c missi ons. Sir J0hn Cheyne
accom panie d his king on an exped ition to Irelan d in 1394 •

"
after havin g been sent to Rome regar- 0.ing a new statu te
of 1390.
Altho ugh prior to >o/cl if's death the activ ities of
'(.
•'
his follow ers do not refle ct on his ortho doxy, it must/ be
F
~-
\
t
' l admit ted th~t the later exces ses of the Lolla rds of 1395
•,

might have appal led him. By this time pries ts, peasa nts,
.1.)
,.
/ r
'
(~
"\
.,
l,~. '
(,.-

"\
I
r
 ,,,",'•t' •, , ., ,•.,'~·•, P'II ,, : 't •• ,

""
,,

15

l(n.ights, and social out_laws shared "the name of the sect.

' f\. ,)
D.,,'
It was during this year that the actiy·-~>:tie s of the Lollard

Knights reached a climax when Clifford, Stury, and others

tacked the famous Lollard Co~clusion s to the door of St.
Paul's Cathedral. The Conclusion s called· for a radical pro-
gram of religious and social reform condemnlllg w1r, capital
punishmen t, religious im~ges, chur·ch endowm:-e"nts,~-~-pilgrimae;es,
r·,

'*
and the celibacy of the clergy. At the urgent insistence of
[)
Klng Richard-th e Conclusion s were retracted . The sincerity of

the repentance of the miscreant s is obvious from a portion

r--
of Clifford's tragic will of·l404: " •.• I most unworthi and
Gaddis t~aytor, recommaunde .•• my wrechid carcass to be
l(.)
buried in the ferthest corner of the chircheya rd •••• n5

. Yet regardless of the radical conduct of later Lollardy, it

If

would be unjust to pass judgment on Wyclif or on Chaucer's

,
. (

relationsh ip to him except in the light of the events that 1

-
transpired during the Oxford scholar's lifespan.
Not only would Chaucer have been drawn toward Wyclif's
views because of the latter's respectab le conservati sm,
,,

but other more tµngible b9nds existed between the two men.
There w2s, for instance, the fact that John of Gaunt was

patron to both the -poet and the, reformer. Gaunt was the

foremost prince of Engla.nd of the day, who, except f.or

;'
'•','•

:-. !'
,,
,'

very short intervals, practica·l ly governed England for

thirteen years. · Undoubted ly, his motives in forming an

alliance with Wyclif ~iere selfishly political , yet the two ,.

•. ~ ....,, ... ..,,-'l·w.."'" l-, ~ .....

.... \·,i -~ . '·

 ,.~~ < ,·., • , •• ..,•·..;,•a,-#,.'· ,,j\dl·;.. ·',, .... , ......,.,...... ~_.. ,.,·,-.---,.~·i.c ...-.~,-;
-- .. ,.• ., ...• ,_,4,,,,;, ,_.,, . . . . . . . . . _.·~

16

"ft.
~o mb ine d .to form a po we rfu l off en siv e ag ain st e·c cle
sia sti ca l
i '.
\');

sho rtc om ing,,.

s and pa pa l tyr an ny . Un til Ga un t tur ne d ag ain st
Wy cli f be cau se of ~the la tte r's vie ws on tra ns ub sta nti
ati on ,
~- ...... ,_ . _,.,.....,__,_.;:-••---....,,
the re 1 s ev ery ind i8ca tio n th at a rel igi ou s a~ d po ll ti
'
ca l
J'

rap po rt e4 ist ed among the se two no tab les and Ch auc er.
It is ,. di ffi cu lt to tra ce Ch au ce r's rea cti on to the
"

sp lit bet we en Ga un t and Wy cli f, bu t pr io r to its oc qu

rre nc e
the pu rsu its of the thr ee men wo uld ha ve be en co njo
ine d to
a co nsi de :ra ble de gre e by the t·re me ndo us str ug r3l e fo
r sup rem -
acy bet we en the sta te and the ch urc h. Ri ch ard II, wi th the
su pp ort of Ga 9a nd oth er. po we rfu l En gli shm en , sto od
,,.,., in
fir m op po sit ion to the sim ony and oth er wi de spr ead ab
use s
among the for eig n ele me nt in co ntr ol of the En gli sh
ch urc h.
Sin ce W yc lif 's vie ws we re in acc ord wi th the pro sp ec '
t of
the En gli sh sta te and ch urc h be ing fre ed fro m Ro me 's
mo net ary
f

. gra bs , Ri ch ard tur ne d on oc ca sio n to the res pe cte d

sch ola r
to ph ras e the re to rt to dem and s fro m the po pe at Rom
e fo r
fun ds. Th us, W yc lif 's ou tsp ok en op po sit ion to the ch
urc h's
co lle cti on of tit he s ap pe 3rs to hav e be en mo tiv ate d
by
pr ac tic al po lit ica l co ns ide rat ion s, as we ll as by rel
igi bu s
co nv ict ion . 'While it is tru e tha t Wy cli f fav ore d the co ntr ol
of the chu rcl 1 by the sta te, he cle arl y ind ica ·te d hi
s gr ea ter
'
de vo tio n to 1n ·te rna l ch urc h ref orm by pe rsi sti ng in
his
·! •

pe ril ou s co urs e of op po sit ion to the wr on gd oin gs of the '

cle rgy eve n af ter he had lo st the su pp ort of the no ble

s p

'-.
fol lo, iln g the Pe asa nts ' Rev,o-lffi As the ref orm er con tiin ued
·r
',.

•.
,. •
·1

\..
• R
,,
0

,,

i.'·'. ' '~ .. - • .' I' ' ' A-',

._.,. .• ,.r,•l-l · , ,~ .......;' ,, ·, ·~- l: ... _. ·'', '· , , • " ,. , J...; -...-•. r'': :' ,_' ,, ':•, \ '•,< -·~·· ,-, )·,.•, • ·-· '• :,, •• , ";'·'·· ,. ' ...'. :., , ,,_,, ,.· .·_, -~ '.' i.:•.. 1·- ..,.,,_:·' '·:. ,' \ • · , .,' ~ ... '.'" ,·._.:···· , '• "/··~ / ,•,r•; •, ,·· .. : :··~ .. . "":·:,,i..:....:, ~· ,,"':;!.' ',,,:; _. ·~·~;..;.- ,-•. 1_ ,.,_,, ·'·,:·J- r,.~ ,• ~' .:, -,._,··-. ,, . ,•!:'l _., · ~ .' ,o 'o ,..,,. , /q•:, ·1_, ·-

• I

17
fl i- • .• • •

. .. / \
h1s work among the .poorer classes of people by issuing tra~ts
in the oommon vernacula r and translatin g the Bible into
English, it seems conceivab le that Chauc~r was demonstra ting
his unwavering approval of Wycl}f's effort$ in giving a
~

laudatory descriptio n of ·a peasant, the Plowman, in the

General Prologu~ of the Canterbury Tales (A. 529-541). 6
'
_£mother strong link between Chaucer and Wyclif was
forged by the poet's close friendship with nearly all of the
Lollard Knights, who formed the hard core of the Wyclifite
movement (see page 14, above). Sir Richard Stury had served
with Chaucer on a diplomatic mission to.France in the days
of Edward III. Sir Lewis Clifford was on such intimate
terms \vi th Chaucer that it has been suggested that Lewis .,

Chaucer was named for him. 7 It was Clifford who had been
sent by Joan, the Princess of Wales, to the Lambeth Council
with orders that Wyclif was not to be harmed during his
trial for heresy. In addition to Stury and Clifford, the
long list of the ~ights who were known to be close to
Chaucer includes Thomas Latimer, John Trussel, John Pecke,
'· - :6'

Reginal Hilton, William.-, Neville,· John Clanvov1e, and John

Montague. Chaucer may well be expressing his regard for
these Lollard nobles by flattering them in his idealized
~ ~

portrait of the.Knigh t in the General Prologue, who fights

only for the faith and never against other Christians
.
(as would\_bef it a Lollard Knight). Of cours~, the Knight
of the Prologue would probably not be a. disciple of \vyclif,

'

. .,' I /
 .. ~ .. .. ' .~ ~·· .,.. , ~ .., •' '

. ,q

18 ·
··.ii

'
'..r

"
sinc e he had been on a cr'3,,Sade and was goin g on a pilg rima ge,
both of whic h were fro,v ned en by Loll ards . Yet Chau cer
.
here . is defi nite ly sho,~ring a degr ee of symp athy with vlyc lif's,Ii

sect in givin g favo rable treat men t to a grou p iden tifie d-

popu larly with the move ment .

~1or eove r, a numb er of simi lar bi ts of evid ence of the

poe t's cong enia l attit ude to,va rd Lollc \rdy appe ar in his
'

writ ings and subs tant iate the exis tenc e of a trac eabl e tie
,)
be·tv1een him and Wyc lif. It is in Chau cer's ~Jor trai t of the '
.,

'
·,
..
good Pars on of t0e Cant erbu ry Tale s that most of thes e bits

of evid ence eppe ar. For exam ple, in two insta nces in the· \

J:.~an of Lavr 's Epil ogue (B. 1173 , 1177 ) the Pars on seem s to
1
acce pt bein g cal led a "Lol lere" with out pr-ot ·estin g even tl1ou gh
,,.
..•

the Shipm an infe rs that his gosp el, as th2.t of a L.oll ard, is

not pure (
. I"") 0
B. 110·2-ll<_, 3) • Then ther e are seve ral insta nces
in vrhic h the Pars on hold s to a poin t of viev1 1·rhic h is par-

ticu larly cl1ar rrcte ri stic of the Loll ~:r~ 0 si tion , as in his
•

r~bu ~in3 of the Host for swea ring (B 1 • . vous

1170 -117 1), a grie .

/
offe nse to the puri tan Loll a.rds . In the matt er of his bein g
loat h to curs e for tith es (A. 4:6) he is in harmony with
vfyc lif 's comp laini ng th:_·.t the cl1ur·ch curs ed L:en fo:r thei r

failu re to ti the but allow ed. othe r sins to 30 1..mpuni shed .

I
\ . .,
The cond emna tion of abse ntee ism in the listi ng of the Pars on's
virt, )es (it. 507- 512) is in acco rd with Loll.-_·_r·cl tec·.c hing .
-
His refu sal to condemn the poor whil e excu sing the rich

•
''· ·\

' .. ---- .................,

.~.~,:·... ,-·~
;. .' ,.{, . '
 ,
... •...

19

I
.I
I

{A. 521-523) follows a distinctively Lollard practice. The 'I

I
i
', i
I

statement· made of the Parson, "But Cristes loore and his

I
:i
apostles twelve/ He ta~ughte ••• " (A. 527-528),has a Wyclifite ; I

-flavor inasmuch as vfyclif and his followers empht1sized the

phras\, "Crist and hls apostles." Also, lt was character-

istic of Wyclif to insist o~ the authority of the Bible,
and es9ecially the gospels, as opposed- to the church fathers,
councils, canon~sts, etc. It 1~ noteworthy in observing 11
I
;,

these indications of a harmony in religious ideals between

/..,..
-:-.....:.-...
•
Chaucer and Wyclif that Chaucer never lends support to the

• reformer's attack on the Eucharist or to other of the most

distinguishing beliefs of ti,ie Lollards. 1 Thus, a reasonable
\ assumption in .regard to Cha-µcer-'s interest in \·Yyclifite
)- .

teachings would be that it·was the element of reform and the

practical approach to religion to 'be found in Lollardy that
appealed to Chaucer rather" than 1 ts tendencies to\·:ard wh_at

the church considered to be· heretical. Undoubtedly, Chaucer's

- '

attitudes toward religious reform were affe.ct2d to a great

degree by his direct and indirect association - ~:11 tn./ Wyclif ' '

. . ......
,'

. -~ .. ·.•

and Lollardy, yet this is not to label him-as an avowed

I ,.. .
Wyclifi te or even a. religious radical. He n1ust be credited ·
with possessing discrimi_nation in his acceptawnce of ~yc1\if
-- ' (
r '

and what he stood for. Since there persl~ted for ndarly '
five centuries after his dee.t~an image of Chauce~ as a

zealous reform leader, even to the extent of his being

' JI
·-
"l'' ''" ___ .:\.

--~
 ' ~.,J .''. ..-,"": :- . . ' • '. ' ··. ' ·-. . ., • . ·- '.'. i ·.-:..-·.• , .. ·,.-, ;, ;, , •• •_:. ~,,

. '
'

,
20

\ ...

viewe d as a de.d)c ated Loll·a rd disci ple, a· consi derat ion

r

.;.,: of the evide nce that has been drawn upon in suppo rt of this
;:,

conce pt would appea r, to be neces sary to a co':rre ct evalu ation

of his contr ibuti on to the refo-rm movement.
- ___ , tr>.1 ,,

·-. -~'

;:,,/ ;\..,K . '

. ~-. "'
'"': .-·

. '\
J I ""-.- ---: ,.
':"' I_

.:1·
'. . I·
.. I
':-,· ~

:...•

·{_··
s:
·,"."

<.

,f,·
·~.

~:

.-~ ....

.. ·~!,

~.
:(..
'\.

·\

.., .. ,.. ··i •

\
 "t ... :·l, \ .

21 \. ~
\.
I

I
-~. 1Chapter ·III
·THE VIEW OF CHAUCER AS A RADICAL REFORMER

Among commentat ors who ha.ve held to the theory that

Chaucer ·was a religious radical, none have been more insistent

~ban those who have seen him as a full-fledg ed Lollard.

Although various critics have taken Chaucer's Parson to be a
disciple of Wyclif, no other has attempted to transfer the I

stamp of Lollard identity to the poet himself with the resolute-

ness of Simon, whose essay depicts Chaucer as a ,fyclifite . 1
Simon uses as his basis for placing a Lollard label on Chaucer
the conviction that the Parson, sympathet ically portrayed oy
~
the poet, is a good disciple of \vyclif, Judging from the
~-
des c r 1 pt ions of him in a number of passages from the Canterbury
Tales. For example, mention in the General Prclogue of the
fact that the Parson took his doctrine frorn tl1e gospel (A. 481,
\

498, 527) is taken as a parallel to the fact that the· foundation

of Wyclifite doctrines and sermons was nothing other than the
gospel, 1:1hereas the orthodox clergy of Chaucer's day frequently

amused their hearers with fables, romances, and jests. The

Q

comparison is extended in that the Parson, who lived a holy

life (A. 479, 505), carried a staff in his hand (A. 495) in
.,,
..

conformity to the prevailing Lollard practice of accentuati ng

holy living witn an austerity that involved the wearing of
'
plain apparel and traveling barefooted with staff in hand. ' ,..
~
..

Later, during the pilgrimage the Host makes two references

'-~

·~.
'.:i·

11;

i
'•

I
ci
....
r
r,1

l
 "':_
''-·
". . ....

/ .. ..
( 22
.,

to the Pars on. as a "Lol lere 11 ( see page 18, Etbo ve). The Pars on's
very failu re to resi st bein g bran ded a here tic is' assum ed to

be evid ence of his Loll ard aff~ liati on. It is even sugg ested

t I' ':'
that Chau cer beco mes a Wyc lifi te cham pion in ,~1~1 ting the Cant er-
bury Tale s with the inte ntio n of hold ing. up pilg rima ges to
ridi cule and cont empt . As he exhi bits the loos e, sinf ul
prac tice s of the trav eler s, he is said to be shar ing the

scor n of the Lollc 1rds for such excu rsio ns. Simon fina lly
poin ts out that the oniy sect ion of the P2r2 on's Tale in whic h
Cl1e~ucer rema ins true to the cree d of Rome is t~e.t part of the

Pars on's serm on whic h advo cate s 2uri cula r conf esci on. Then , in
orde r to cen2e nt Chau cer to Loll ardy fore ver, Simo n pain stak ingl y
expe nds the fina l tvfo third s of his leng thy. essa y 2 :Ln an attem pt
.
to prov e thElt this pro-R omis h port ion of t!~e serm on v1as in-
serte d afte r Cl1a ucer' s com ,leti on of the tale . It is the
very 11eak ness o.nd desp er[lt e \·1or dines s of this conc lud-i ng

sect ion of his nrti cle that tend s to unde rmin e the argu ment
<

that Chau cer 1r·ras a conf irme d Loll s rd. dhile ~ 1 t 1 s true
1

th2t throu gh the Pars on Chau cer is show ing a degr ee of sym-
patl- iy ivith Loll ~rdy (see p2ge s 1,3-1 9, o.bov e), the comp lete
abse nce from his serm on of any teac hing tha.t coul d \ave

been cons ider~ d unor thod ox by the chur ch virtu 2lly elim inat es
. ' .

,,.
the poss ibili ty of a Loll ard havi ng prea ched it. i\s ha.~
· been poin ted out by Manl y3 and othe rs, ther e were many
piou s, even puri tani cil ortho dox prie sts in Engl and at this
time v1ho mie;h t have f11rn ished the esse ntia l tr2.i ts of the

.;:,.·

,.

- "
 ' ' '·
/" .''
. '_

'i'.
~ ... ..
•

Pars on. Furt herm ore, the uny1 e~d1 ng stan d of the Loll ards
agai nst pilgr imag es woul d have prec lude d one of thei r prie sts
( from bein g a Cant erbu ry trav eler in the firs t plac e.
!

·
, Yet anot her appr oach to the ques tion of Cha u~r' s
attac hme nt to Loll ardy iden tifie s the Pars on as none othe r .I
f
1
!

than Wyc lif, hims elf. 4 The iden tific atio n begi ns with the
line whic h intro duce s the Pars on in the Gene ral Prol ogue :
"A good man was ther of relig ioun " (A. 477). Sinc e the term
"man of· relig ion" was nor'm ally appl ied only to members of
regu lar orde rs, the· Pars on, who was obvi ousl y a secu lar
,.
prie st, must belo ng to the Loll ard prie stho od, whic h claim ed
to be the only true relig ious orde r. Pers onal sim ilari ties
betw een the Pars on and Wyc lif inclu de the fact s that the
Pars on 1s a learn ed man, he is rela ted to,a plou ghma n, and
J
he has ofte n been subj ecte d to adve rsity (A. 480, 529, 484) .
As to the Wyc lifite char acte r of the prea chin g of the Par son ~
the comm entat or, Miss Ives , cont ends that his treat men t of
the Seve n Dead ly/Si ns was in acco rd with Loll ard prac tice .
i
'1

She is in agre emen t with Simo n's obse rvat ions on the serm on
c: ,<~. )
up to the matt ~r of auri cula r conf essi ons. · Jere she poin ts
out that Wyc lif, inste ad of oppo sing the prac tice , actu ally
\

enco urag ed conf essio n unde r prop er circu msta nces in stat ing:
"Con fessi on maad to trew e pres tis and witt y in Gadd is lawe , .,

do mpche good to synf ul men. 11 5 Ho:wever, in sp1 te of this

v/

attem pted link ing of the Pars on with Wyc l1f, Chau cer is not
\. depi cted as a· devo ut Loll ard disc iple , but rath er as a

, I
• I
 0·.

24
i I

-..

sym path etic defe nde r of Wy clif, wri ting und er the pro tect ion
l•

of John of Gau nt. Thu s, Cha ucer beco mes a Lol lard cham pi~n , (
' I

not thro ug~ ~er son al ded icat ion to the cau se, bu\ by virt ue
of the fac t tha t he is in a pos itio n to s~fe ly abe t a mut ual '

frie nd of Gau nt's .

/
Perh aps the stro nge st argu men t for ann exin g Cha uc~r
to the rank s of reli gio us refo rme rs is evid enc e tha t in the ,.

_:... J'et-·
sixt een th cen tury he was ~rim aril y rega rded as a .ref orm er:
a mor alis t who by satir e···· expo sed and rebu ked the vice s and

foll 1es of the day._ In fac t, his work was con side red to
be such a hars h indi ctm ent of the chu rch tha t, acco rdin g to
I I

•
~I
I

the rep ort of the ~an tiqu ary Thy nne, ·the wri ting s of ·Cha ucer 1,:
;11
[j

,1
I
,1

came nea r to bein g pro hib ited in an open parl iam ent ·but , ' 'Ii
"I
I

~
l

fort una tely , were cou nted to be fab les. 6 Ref orm ers- of this [r

era of reli gio us rev olt saw in Cha ucer a kind of fore run ner
0

who shar ed the ir opin ions with rega rd to Rome, as evtd enc ed
·'

'
by his keen sat iric al exp osu re of the reli gio us ord ers of

his time . Fox e, in the seco nd edit ~on of his Boo k of r~,1 rtyrs ,
mar vele d tha t the bish ops of Eng land had allo wed Cha ucer
to be read , view ing his work to be "jes ts and toy s," whi le
~,fl
( }}1 the time the poe t was uph oldi ng the end s of true reli gio n

as a righ t Wy clif i te. 7 Fox e adde d tha t he even knew of ·some I•

'

who had bee n bro ugh t to the true reli gio n; b.Y thes e wor ks.
Thi s app rai~ al of Cha uce r's wor th as a reli gio nis t was atte sted
. \
t~ by Lela nd, the poe t's firs t biog raph er, who ·wro te in ~he
ear ly par t of the sixt een th cen. tury tha t Cha ucer "le ft the
~-)

·\.·'
·\
,.. '"'
'1
 /

25

---
Univ ersit y a devo ut theo logi an, 118 a state men t acce pted as
fact by othe r wri·t ers well into the follo wipg cent ury. Ther e-
fore , in a crit ical peri od o·f relig iou~ uphe aval , an imag e

of Chau cer emer ges whic h 1 s adm· irabl y adap table _to the need s
... . ' :..•

···~
of thos e zeal ous advo cate s of puri ty in the chur ch, the re-
form ers.
That the men of the Refo rmat ion may have been just ifie d
:

to a degr ee in claim ing Chau cer as a pfec urso r is supp orted I .

by Loun sbury , who obse rves : "Per haps in a sens e they them-r
selv es litt le unde rstoo d, the Refo rmer s of the sixte enth

cent ury did have a righ t to reck on Chau cer among thei r fore -
runn ers, thou gh the meth od he purs ued· was as littl e like
that of Wyc liffe as his spir it vlas like thei r own. rr9 Obvi -

·"'·.
ousl y,. the impo rtanc e of the imag e of Chau cer as a zeal ous
refor m advo cate d·eri ves from the fa.ct that thos e who form ed

it w.ere four cent urie s clos er to the man than pres ent- day
.,
obse rver s. Yet this imi)o rtanc e is cons ider ably mini mize d
by the fact that supp ort for the claim of the refo rmer s \); .

upon
I
Chau cer was base d not only upon the theo logi cal impl i-·
catio ns of his work s and the effe ctiv enes s ·or his sati re
of the ques tion able cleri cs· of the Cant erbu ry Tale s, but
)
also on the prem ise (now prov en fals e) ·tha t he was the auth or
of sucl1 denu ncia tion s of the Roman chur ch as Jacl{ Upla nd,

Pilg rim' s !~le , and tJ_owman's fale (see page 9, abov e).
t..

The wani ng of the sixte enth cent ury and the adve nt
_ ...... ' ' 1 ~---~,,...

/
.. ~

I.
! :: .·
',t-,'

l .
1, .
r ,, .,.-. ••" . - .,-.
 .. "'
' . ...
26
~- .
.
... .:..:.-.....,..:...
'
f

of the Elizpbe than Period brough t little change in the

popula r concep t of Chauce r. He was conside red to be a pur-
..... veyor of wisdom , a teache r of_good morali ty. Minist ers and
morali sts of the era repeate dly pointed their lessons with
ep1s.ode s and wise sayings · -of the po_et. In additio n, Protes t-
,.

ants found 1n his satire of priests and clerics author itative ·

support for their own attacks on papist s. Once again,
maximum use was made of the spuriou s Plovnnan 's Tale, an
edition of which appeare d in 1606 with the title : The Plo:ugh -
,.·
J man's 1ale. Shewing 2!_ the doct~in e and lives 9f the Romish
l"·"'
I
·'
Clergi~ ., that the fope 1.§. Antich rist, and they his I1inist ers.

Written 2Z_ Sir Geffrey [si~ Chauce r, Knigh~ •••• 10 Little

wonder that in the Elizab ethan mind Chauce r stood as a sage
and prophe t w,hose keen eye had foresee n the evils of the

papacy .

It remaine d for schola rs of the sevente enth century •

to lay an even strong er claim upon Chauce r as a critic of

the Cathol ic Church. In seeking histor ical preced ents and
texts to fortify the positio n of the Church of England ,
histori ans .of the Church turned to Chauce r for evidenc e that
Protest antism had e~isted in England prior to the Reform -
ation. By virtue of his suppose d accepta nce of .wyclif.1 te

prin9ip l~s
•
and his onslau ghts agains t Catholi cism ·1n such
.
.....
works as the Plowma n's Tale and Jack Upland ( at this time \

still er:roneo tisly attribu ted to Chauce r), Low Church Anglica n
writers tended to consid er the poet as an early English f

,•· ..

' .

\
I .
 '. '

\
·,,\
r , 27

repre senta tive of the true Prote stc.nt Churc h. Such,, advoc ates
of the faith as Antony Cade, Samuel B1rck bec, and Willia m
~------'-".·:-:-
. .:···"~-··~-·-·. ·-w1n stanle y maint ained that Chauc·er 's views appro ximat ed
,f.

i...,
those held by the Reformed Churc h of Engla nd. Cade, on the
stren gth of the Plowm an's Tale, recko ned Chauc er among the
medie val prede cesso rs of the true Churc h in that he had
\
attac ked speci fical ly the idlen ess, the pride , and the greed
of the corru pt clerg y of his day. Birckbec in simil ar vein
\
added , "Thro ughou t his works , in his descr iptio n of the
Friar , the summoner, the Pardo ner, and Jack Upla.n d, Chau cer's
) objec tions to the worsh ipping of relic s, insis tence upon
salva .tion by works and sellin g of pardo ns and indul gence s
'l' ' , ~'

were clear ly those of the prese nt Churc h of Engla nd ••.• nll r,

In turn the emine nt church men Thomas Fulle r and Gilbe rt

Burne t rose to the defen se of the reput ation of John Foxe
as a histo rian in order to ·valid ate the seven teent h-cen tury
editio ns of his Acts and·M onume nts. These volum es provi ded
a re,:J.dy sourc e of insin uatio ns to the. effec t that Chauc er
in his defen se of Lolla rd doctr ine had not faile d to point
out the ipope with his prela tes to be Antic hrist. To com-
plete the pictu re of Chauc er, the pre-R eform ation Prote stant ,
the schol ars of this age insis ted that the doctr ine of
suprem acy of state OV&'~ churc h was preac hed by Wycl if,
1:-<·

accep ted and advoc ated by Chauc er, and maint ained throu ghout ..
t
the ages· as the estab 1 ished doctr ine of the Churc h •

.....

,,
 28
•

Cha ucer 's repu tatio n cont inue d to rest in part on

spur ious , anti -cle rica l work s thro ugho ut the epsu ing Rom antic
.
Peri od. By this time the Test amen t of Love , part of the
r' - --
\
l .'
Chau cer apoc ryph a of more than sixt y piec es, had become the '
I
I

most pow erful form ative influ ence on the biog raph y of Chau cer.
On the basi s of this and othe r spur ious work s, cite d abov e,
Will iam Godwiri in 1803 brou ght out his Life of Chau cer, whic h
did more to prop agat e the Chau cer lege nd than any othe r work
of the Rom antic Peri od. With only a sma tteri ng of fact
)

-- -- -- --
from the Test amen t of Love , Godwin was able to depi ct the
poet as a dedi cate d poli tica l and relig ious refo rmer who
,,
suff ered impr isonm ent and brie f exil e for the caus es he I
,,

had espo used . Sinc e Godwin was c~nv ince d that Wyc lif was
an intim ate frien d of Cha ucer 's, it is not surp risin g that
Robe rt Sout hey sl1ould beli eve that Chau ce·r stud ied at Oxfo rd -
unde r Wyc lif, and that in late r year s he was exil ed and
impr ison ed·f or his Loll ard asso ciati on. It follo 1is that
Isaa c _d' Isra eli shou ld conc eive of Chau cer as bein g boun d
up "wit h the nove l doct rine s of his frien d, Dr. \'vic kliff e,

by a cong enia l spir it," and that Leig h Hunt shou ld stat e

of the poet that he "too k plea sure inde xpos ing the abus es
of the chu1~ch. " 12 By almo st unan imou s cons ent the Rom antic s
held Chau cer to be a remo te caus e of the ·Refo ~mat lon in
Engl and, a~ ins~ rume nt for brin ging the Ro.m ish hier arch y
.. .''\,

'

into cont empt and k·eep~ng aliv e the spir it of the \vyc lifi tes.

Alth ough the Cant erbu r. Tale s were occa sion ally cite d a~

'
. '·'· .. ... "' ·•"' .
 . . ,, ' ~ ~.l I ;, "
' ;.' • ' r ~ • i' •

....... ~" ., ·-~ .. '. ' . .

\

29

supp ort for this cont entio n, in gene ral, as ~as the case
with refo rmis ts and writ ers of the t.wo prec edin g cent urie s,
Chau cer's much -adm ired attac ks on the weak and corr upt
bran ches of eccl esia stic al gove rnme nt were drawn larg ely
"'

from work s ·not of his auth orsh ip. - .,; ·;:

It was not unti l the latt er half of the nine teen th

cent ury that edit ions of the poe t's work s bega n to appe ar
whic h were rela tive ly free of the spur ious . At last an un-
'-&

colo red eval uati on coul d be ma~e of Chau cer, the man, in the
ligh t of the lang uage of Chau cer, the arti st. Slow ly, the
pendulum of Chau ceria n criti cism bega n an inev itab le swin g
away from the conc ept of the poet as a dedi cate d relig io~s
~eal ot. By the twen tieth cent ury a new imag e of Chau cer
was coming into focu s.: an imag e now tinte d with skep ticis m
inste ad of zeal , now shad ed with a cour tly indi ffere nce
to mora l issu es inst ead of a sens itive cons ciou snes s of
the evil s of his day .
•

\ ...

~·

~ ..

"'··
:.,. \'
~ .
)
\
'• \

., \
' /_,
\ .. ~-
 30

.... ·
.

.Chapter IV

THE VIEW OF CHAUCER AS A SKEPTICAL, OBJ~CTIVE REPORTER

Understand ably, numerous variations of opinion exist

among writers who hold to the more recent concept of a
skeptical Chaucer, lacking in moral force, even as among
those who consider him to be al reform leader •. A fe\·r typical
1

samplings from this newer schooi of thought will provide

definition of the c6hcept and offer· a basis for considerin g
its validity. Noteworthy among modern-day scholars is Dom
David Knowles, who ventures some observatio ns on Chaucer's
motiv.~_tio n in his impressive history, The Religious OrderE in

England. 1 Knowles compares Chaucer's writing with that of

Langland and Wyclif and concludes that Chaucer seems to have
a moderate tone. The explanatio n is offered that Chaucer is
a man of the world, a court poet tolerant by nuture, an ex-
ample of the convention al orthodox
,1
party which ge.ined_ in-
fluence durir;.g the latter part of the reign of Ricl-10.rd II.

Hence, Chaucer is able to laugh at the failings of the clergy

without indignatio n or repulsion, simply making his peace

with God in later years. This absence of moral indignatio n,
1 t is felt, merely gives a keener edge t,0 his so. tire against
religious preten,se. The author views Chaucer's Gle1~k· and

Parson as· ''the purest of their kind, ~vllile the lv:onlr and Friar

embody all the self-indul gence and versatile hypocrisy of F

\ ' '

their respect~~; , classes. 11 2 The Monk.ls further descrlb~

()
,,

(>
 -. --r., .. ' •.
J 31
\

~.

as well-b red, capable , worldly , ~nd able to dismis s the Rule

•
as a code of the Dark Ages. The Friar become s-an entice r
of peniten ts who can extrac t money and gifts from widows
...
and the sick. Yet, in spite of these admiss ions of the 1n-
c1 si veness · of Chauce r's chara. cter delipe ations, the histori an

states of the poet that he "unlike his two contem porarie s

[Langla nd an9" Wycli~ , was conscio us of no mission or desire
to refo-rm -society , u but instead his testimo ny might be re-
..
garded (if isolate d) as an attenti on-cat ching exagge ration.
While mainta ining his insiste nce upon Chauce r's lack of moral
indign ation, I(nowle s makes this conces sion: "The close agree-

ment, howeve r, between Langlan d, Wyclif and Chauce r is too

,.
remark able to be dismis sed."3 • ..

To other Chauce rian scholar s Chatice r's.app arent interes t

in religio us issues seems to be merely his mode of express ing
,, f
-
either anti-cl ericali sm or skeptic ism. Since the charge of
be~ng false to their profess ion may be leveled at four of
the five churchm en of the Canterb ury Tales (the Monk, the
Priore ss, the Friar, and the Pardon er), while only the Parson
is held up as ideal, Chauce r is assumed to be anti-c lerica l.

His questio ning of heaven) and hell in the Prologu e to the·

Legend of Good Women (F. 1-16) and Palamo n's rebuke of the
cruel gods in the Knight 's Tale (A. 1303-13 08) are said to
.A.

give indicat ions of his underly ing ·skeptic ism, typica l of

I

h1,s age. The force of these /charge s agains~ Chauce r is

mitiga ted by the conclus ion that even if the poet did not ~ \i

j
'
I
I
~-;
I
·,
. !

·,'
J
l
~·· !
'I .../
 32

hold this skepticism of the age, he at least was aware of it. 4

In considering the charges further, it seems. unjust to accuse
Chaucer of anti-clericalism when he is never guilty o:f
L
affronting the office of any of the clerics mentioned; it
is the .abuse of the fffice that is highlighted. The poet's
I -
obvious admiration of his Parson shows him, in at least one
, i

instance, to be strongly pro-clerical. Neither does 1 t seem.~.

fair to condemn Chaucer's honest questioning of his beliefs

in heaven and hell as proof of skepticism. Furthermore, ir
Palamon's speech is to be a.basis for classifying Chaucer.
as a skeptic, would not as sound a basis for calling him
devout be off-ered by Arel te 's declaration thr.t the provisions
'•,.1

of God or of Fate are better for men than their own planning
(A. 1251-1254)?

' In t.h~_opinion of Lounsbury5 also, Chaucer evinces

:S·kepticism by imply_ing utter disb~lief in certe.in religious

tenets through the hostility of his late work towerd the

church. Chaucer is said to be attacking the church by ironical
...

insinuation in the su~moner's Tale, for instance, in which

.......,.,.
the be55in5 friar orders a hug~ meal of various delicacies

and then delivers a .discourse against gluttony and in praise

of fasting and purity of living. It is pointed out that·the
poet gives utterance to his critical views on th~ church
~
through the inferior, unrefined personages of his stories. JP'.

S1n6e these people would be expected ~o express rude sentiments

<'

..... ~·

-~·
)
 J
33
. A

Ch auc er do es no t rec eiv e any un ple asa nt att en tio n

anyway, ....
...• , .,
un sbu ry,
fro m the ec cle sia sti ca l au th or iti es . In fa ct, ad ds Lo
s of the ch urc h mi gh t ha ve fe lt a sa tis fa cti on tha t
de vo tee ----~,

and
the att a. ck s on the ch urc h we re ma de by the un ed uc ate d
tio n
}v ulg ar. 6 In de fen se of Ch auc er he re, it seems a~ ref lec
gr ea t cra f.ts ma n' s 11 ter ary sk ill to im ply th at he arb i-
on a
-.
ign s_s p~ ech e~ to co ntr ive d ch ara cte rs to dis gu ise
tra ril y ass
a hid de n mo tiv e. In ite ad , much of the cha rm of Ch au cer 's

na lit y sk etc he s de riv e~ fro m the fac t tha t his co lor fu l

pe rso /1

rs are alw ay s dis arm ing ly na tur al. Had Ch auc er bee n
ch ara cte
rit ing
gu ilt y of op po sin g the ten ets of the chu r·c h in hi s v1
can be lit tle qu est ion th at the ul tra se ns iti ve ch urc h
the re
e fou r-
lea de rs who led the pu rge of the Lo lla rds in the lat
sit ati on .
tee nth ce ntu ry wo uld h ve ba nn ed his wo rks wi tho ut he
On oc ca sio n the 01 ini on hi s be en ex pre sse d of Ch auc er

tl12. t, wh ile he dis pla ys a de gre e of .in ter es

t in rel igi ou s·

In his
ma tte rs_ , he is ba sic all y no t a de vo ut Ch ris tia n.
lat ing stu dy of Ch au ce r's 'sp iri tua l tem pe rat ure Lo om is
sti mu
ca tal og ue d some of the ve rsi on s of thi $ all eg ati o~ .7
ha s ne atl y
He ob ser ve s th at ·w hil e Ro ot fin ds Ch auc er to be aw
a.re of ev il
,/'

t on ly am use d the reb y, Ch ris top he r Da ws on, Hadow , and Kuhl

bu
in di ffe re nt . We lls in hi s Ma nua l su gg est s tha t the
see him as
po et 1 s no nc om mi tta l on hi s re lig io us vie v1s . Ele an or. -C hil ton

Al do us Hu xle y ca st him as a de tac he d by sta nd er, · un pr ote st-

an d
&"

on g. Th ese vie ,~s are . op po sed co nv inc ing ly by Lo om is'

ing of wr

0 ·.
..
'

• .)

. _,,I

. ,. '-
 •. ,' : ' I,, 1 ... ','· ·,:,

'., /·:·

\
34 ·

·I.. •.

thesis that Chaucer was not a Laodicean inasmuch as he took

a firm stand on religious issues, particular ly in his obvious
_,I
sympathy toward t·he Wyclifi tes.
-.
A degree of uncertaint y in regard to Cha~cer's spiritual

status is expressed by Tatlock, 8 who asserts tl1at ~rhile Chaucer

~

may , 1ell have observed the ordina.11ce s of the church, yet the
11

absence of ecclesias tical language in his writings raises a

question as to the depth of his religious fervor. It is

stressed that Chaucer lived in a period when there was not

a great distinctio n betwe,en the sacred and the secular. When

viewed 25ainst such a background he cannot pr0perly be called

·a den.ier or a devotee.· This estimate of Che_ucer is echoed

by Nevill Coghill., who in finding him to be a~ catholic wi,thout

zeal states: "He '{t1as undoubted ly nourisl1ed as a c2.t:iolic and \

there __ is nothing in his work to suggest apostasy, though

there are moments of a mild agnostic re serve. ,,9 i\l though ·f &

such ·01.pprai scls do not damo.ge Cha.ucer' s char\s.ctcr, yet to

see l1im as a lukewarm, nonchalan t Christian i~ to remove the

•
wholesome sting from_bj_s satire and to c1e.ny tL.c: pr(::sence in

his 1. .,.orks of a E,incere spiritual fe1'1vo:t' · \'1l1icl1 has been observed

by numerous admirers of Chaucer, including F. N. Robinson

(see pagE 44, below).
Yet another appraach to the question of Chaucer's lack
•I
of religious motivation is talren in. Arnold Williams' ·thorough ~

;
,,·.
l'
study of his ~ttack on the friars. 10 Williams feels that the
l

I
i
i
/ ./·
. I
i ·'"·"' '

·.\

.,

\.
r"
 - - . ~. ¥
· .. 1 .• ~·;·y r;,,~ ;.. . ·· ~
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _111111.........
1 .. . 1 . L -
~

I
/

35·

·'!,

'I

''
,',

Fri ar is one of the few cha rac ters in the Can terb ury Tal es
,i
'f
!~
·I
J
j
·I

wit h no mit iga tin g vir tue s. Oth er cle ric s are not tre ate d l
i
I

in thi s man ner : the Monk 1s dep icte d as wo rld ly but unh ypo - I
I
1
I

i
cri tic al; the Par son is ide aliz ed. I
At thi s poi nt the cri tic 1
'; I

tak es iss ue wit h the e~p lan atio n tha t it was lar gel y the
men dic ant ord ers whi ch had rap idly deg ene rate d and wer e
hop ele ssly cor rup t. Ne tthe r is he sat isf ied wit h the ex-
pla nat ion tta t thi s cle ric is me rely an uns avo ry man who hap -
pen s to be ·a fri ar. Ins tea d, Wi llia ms tak es the pos itio n
~

tha t Cha uce r's atta ck on the fri ars is bas ed on a med iev al
.;, con tro ver sy ove r men dic ant ord ers tha t had rr:J_ged for the pre -
II
,,

vio us 150 yea rs. The con tro ver sy is div ide d 1nt o thr ee
, I
I',

per iod ic atta cks : the fir st, ini tia ted in the 124 0's by Wil li~m
of St. Amour, a sec ula r cle rk and tea che r; th·e sec ond pre sse d
du:c ing the 135 0' S. by Ric l1ar d Fi tzR alp h, ar·c hbi sl1o p of . 4.rm
. agh
and emi nen t the olo gia n; and the thi rd, t~k en up in 138 0 by
1iy clif , w110 mer ely add ed his own cha rge s to tho se of vlil liam
6f St. kno ur.· Wil liam s dem ons trat es tha t Cha uce r seem s to be
~
foll ow ing the lin e of att. Jcl{ of the fir st t~.·,!o per iod s of the·

con t1~ ove rsy and doe s not app ear to tak e Vly clif ',s poi nt of
~

vie w in r111y of his jab s at the fri ars . ..L\.rnons the r;_c cus atio ns
aga ins t the fri9 .rs rnade by v-li lliam of St. Amour --are the
cha rge s th2 t the fri ars are fal se apo stle s in sol ici tin g
·tem por al soo ds and tha t if the y wer e tru e a)o stle s the y wou ld
1

not cur ry the fav or of the ric h nor acc ept fla tte fin g tit les . - /
. I

I
"

.. I
:If: . I
I

i .
.,l .,,I
.L-.: . I

I·.
0
 (,.~
• 36
•

·,
Ch auc er fol low s thr oug h \vi th his Fr iar Hu ber d, who "was
the ·
be st beg ger e- in his hou s" (A. 252 ), ign ori ng the "la zar
"
and · the "p ora ille " in his dea lin gs "al tfi th ric he and sel
ler es
of vi tai lle " (A. 248 r. Fr iar Joh n in tur n 1 s obv iou sly bei ng
coy in his rej ect ion of the tit le "m a1s ter " (D. 218 5). Fit z-
Ra lph 's att ack cen ter ed on the con fes sio nal pow ers and
men dica ncy of the fri ars . In lik e ma nne r, Ch auc er's Hu ber d
"hc tdd e pow er of con fes sio un .•. mo ore tha n a cu rat " (A.
218 - 1. . . •

219 ) and "wa s ~n e sy man to yev e :pe nau nce " ( A. 223 ). As to
me ndi can cy, Hu~ )erd 's ab ili ty as a beg 5ar (ci ted abo ve)
cou ld
. .·
eas ily be dem ons t~a ted bf the fac t tha t he was abl e to
ex-
tra ct a far thi ng fro m eve n a sho ele ss v1idow (A. 253-2·5.5). '
\

Wi llia ms fur the r po int s out tha t Ch,r~_ucer fai thf ull y r·ol
lov lS
the ba ttl e lin es of Wi llia m and Fit zR alp h exc ept in ·the im~
pli cat ion tha t f1- .iar s "1t1ere loo se 2_bout. the lr v:ovt ·of ch
ast ity
(A. 212 -21 3 and D. 880 -8·e 1). Her e Ch auc er is s}i:ld ·to ,b.e
fol low ing po pu lar ver nac ula r lit era tur e. ·Th is ver y exc ept ion
3

to the pa tte rn so sk ill ful ly pie ced tog eth er in the art icl e ' .

ten ds to inv ali d& te its con clu sio n ~ha t Ch auc er's tre atm ent
of the fri ars me rel y giv es "a rti sti c for m to the mo st imp
or_ tan t
..,
cif the cha rge s ag ain st the fri ar§ made by ~il lia m .•.
and •••
by Fi tzR alp h." Ind eed , Ch auc er's cro s2i n3 ove r fro m the
for· ma. l cle :r~ ica l cha rge s ag ain st the · fri. ~ ~rs to the cha rge
1
s
of th-2 corrw1on peo ple wo uld ind ica te tha t he is sin 1pl y giv .•..
ing
a fra nk and ind isn ant ~1 ctu re of con dit ion s as the y rea lly
. . '

I •

-"'\
,•

I""

..
 37

,•

existed. The striking life-liken es·s o'f the images of Friars

C John and Hllberd cannot be .l?econcile
. d with Williams' insistence· .
' ~ . ' ' '
1

th&t Chaucer's creation of his fria~i merely indicates his

conformi{ty to the atti t~de of the secular clergy which "must

have dominated the thinking of the upper-cla ss, governmen tal

circles in which Chaucer moved. ull
A variation of this concept of Chaucer as a reflector
of contempora ry views finds him t~ be a completely objective
reporter who records the passing scene
•
in a rather detached
manner. To those who hold this concept there is no doubt
.
that Chaucer's is an
. .
essentiall y religious nature, but he
prefers to stay emotional ly aloof fxom the reform issue •
.
"He sees the corruption of the Church, and clearly recognizes
the evil of it; but who is he to set the crooked straight? •••
In this spirit b~ kindly tolerance Chaucer looked at the
'
world about him. T6 the ardent reformer such an attitude
as this seems merely b~se and pusillanim ous; but in Chaucer
1t
--~----
springs neither from weakness nor indifferen ce, but from
auiet
.,_ conviction . " 12 In this instance Chctu·cer is credited

with holding morality to be more than a mere aesthetic value

in art, even to the extent of his being open to the accusation
of h~vins moral \purposes in his writing. Yet, in t,he words
of Patch, " •.• ·in his satire and in· his l1umor his spontanei ty

does riot primarily include a desire to rectify or change.

\mat ., he sees in life he affirrns. nl3
~

' While tl1e degree of

-1

": ,,;.,

.,,.

r;-..
-·.....-., . ·-
 ,,
•,', ''.

• ' • • ' • • •' •' •' • \I; ·~ 'I. -,I

. .., '

~bj ect tvit y in Cha uce r's cha ract er ske tche s may .be deb atab le,
'c) .

on .the oth er han d, hii 'cho ices of sub ject mat ter in them selv es

> refl ect an inte res t in the refo rm- issu e whi ch can not eas ily
be igno red. Wha teve r his mot ivat ion may .hav e been in his
man ner of pre sen ting
"
life as he saw it, he rev eals a trem end ous
sens e of mor al resp ons ibil ity in ~ele ctin g thos e slic es of
,
,
,

life to whic h he cal ls atte ntio n. I

" -·

,I' · Perh aps the ful l swin g from the ima. ge of Chaucer-, the
...
r.efo rme r, v,ras ach ieve d in S. H. Co):' s arti cle , "Ch auc er's

Che erfu l Cyn icism . 1114 In this disc uss ion the poe t is seen
- \

as a man of ligh tly held con vict ion s whose nea rest app roac h
to l1er oi s1n ,1as
1
prob abl_ y the bel ief tha t the 1nev 1 tB.b le mus t
be acc epte d. Here is a spin eles s, shri nkin g pai nte r of a
:mu ltifo rm spe ctac le of life who lack ed dari n5 or the nerv e
g
to thi1n1r tl1in ss thro ugh . Thi s lack of mor al b:1.c l(hon e is
att~ ibu ted to the ·fac t tha t Cha ucer was sold out to aris toc -
. .
racy and chiv alry , hav ing bee n gran ted the firs t of two life

pen sion s e.t the age of twe1 1\'y- seve n and rem aini ng dep end ent

upon John of Gau nt from 1368 on. As' if th)s were not dam ag-
lf '·

ing er1ou£)1 t:) the rep utat ion of the defe nsel es:_ :: ~)oe t, he is

accu sed of a hyp ocr itic al pre tens e tha t his orth odo xy was
sbun d. His pay ing of resp ec~ to the do5mas of the chu rch
· ··was clon e 1--.~ith a wor lldly wink ..whi le he dee ei ved the piou s

- amo ng his ree. ders vii th sanc timo niou _,s} ·~e:x tract s from Boe thiu s"'--~~·-~~.
'
• • •f
1,.::
/ ( . .....
and the fath ers. Even his sati re on wor ldly ·ecc lesi asti cs ~
.

r f

i _,.,

~---
 1·

. I
39

·,.

is not to be mistaken for an interest in justice and truth

that was modified by humor, since such humor was familiar
in his time. Cox seems almost complimentary in his closing
_statement after all that has gone bef6re it. He observes
_,,,,..-.,,,.~,
·-··- _,.,..
,--
tha t i t is merely Chaucer's "cheerful cynicism that would
not break through prized conventions, question traditions
or laugh at the powerful fraud. 11 15 '

And thus a twentieth-

century Chaucer with a flippant, knowing grin appears on

/
the scene of literary criticism to replace the dedicated
. Ii
I:
II

reformist of a bygone era. . I

L.
I

,ii
'II
!I

i!
!I

··~-

)
.:. ~'?-' .

..

:.&.'

ID''

-~-

.,/'
;_..•

"

,· .

. I ..

·, ..,
,
. -'It.

.-. -, ·,;
• •
,. ·•.. '' "
-~.
\ . \ •. •• f • ~,.
;. ,,
..

•
,. .
' ,... 't'•• ~· ,,
.'
 ..... . . 40 · ~ \
,,.. .

I·

I
\
.~

- Ch ap te r V
!
l
I
,I

l~
CHAUCER, A ·Si ijC.... ER E CONTRIBUTOR TO RELIGIOU ~
S REFORM
.i

Upon co m pa ris on of th e vi ol en tly co nt ra st

in g po rt ra it s
I
I'
l
I
i

of Ch au ce r, th e _ ze e. lo us re li- gi on is t, I
an d Ch au ce r, th e in -
di ff er en t sl {e pt ic , on e be co m es 1n ~r 1g
ue d v:i th, ~, the fa .c t th at
th e su bj ec t who ·s at fo r ea ch was th e e.a
.....__
me in di vi du al . In
s1 :il lf ul ly di re ct .in g va ry in g in te ns
it ie s of li gh t c.nq. sh"adow
up on th e su bj ec t, hi s po rt ra it ar ti st t,

, s ha ve be en ab le to re -
pr od uc e fe at ur es of ne ar ly op po si te ch ar
ac te ri st ic s. Pe rh ap s
th e ca st in g of so me in te rm ed ia te co lo rs
of th e cr it ic al
sp ec tru m u:=ion th e el us iv e po et , wh en
co mb in ed ,,1i th th 8 ex -
tre n1 e shc-._des, may he lp br in 5 him in to
cl ea re r fo cu ~s .
-~. In or de r to de te rm in e th e ex te nt of Ch
au ce r's in te re st
.in re lig io u. s re fo r= :, tt_ .;i s es se 11 tia
l th at hi s r_ el at io ns hi p
>,.,
to th e ch ur ch an d hi s tr ue sp ir it ua l po
st ur e be un d~ rs to od .
.c'\.l th ou gh nu me ro us ob se rv er s ha ve gi ve
n ri se to do 11 bts co n-
ce rn in g Ch au ce r's re lig io us si nc er ity (s
ee Ch ap te r I~ , ab ov e) ,
th er e is a si za bl e gr ou p of cr it ic s vrho
se e l1im as a si nc er e
Ca th ol ic and a man of de ep sp ir it ua l 1n
1· '~ ~- . : . . .• ..
s1 5h t. Ten Br in k
co rru ne nts : "H e was a fa ith fu l so n
. ' of th e ch ur cl1 , ev en th ou gh
he ha d hi s ow n op in io ns ab ou t· many· th
in 8 2. Hi s ra tio ne .1 1 st ic
re fl ec tio ns on re lig io us pr ob le m s ha va
so m et im es a sk ep tic al ;,, ~

tin 5e ; bu t hi s sp ir it ua l ne ed s al wa ys le J

d him ba ck ag ai n
to C hr is tia n vi ew s, and na tu ra lly to ·th
e, fo rm of C hr is tia ni ty
... in wh ic h he wa s br ou gh t \lp, vi z. , th e Roman Ch ur ch . 111 In th e

"l: .,.

~· ; ..... :\
"
..
·.
l,H I •Q,
l •. ·,1

,. 11·.
(
 ~
.' 1. l • •· , ·, : I ) I , : : , 1
' ' I ' 'i

41

.•

judg ment of Chut e, Chau cer live d in such clos e rela tion ship
to the dhur ch "the. t his whol e life- was cond ition ed and con-

trol led ..• by the Holy Cath olic Chur ch. From the day of
'
his bapt ism to the adm inist ratio n of the fina l rite s h~
was tn the hand s of the Chur ch. " 2
I
Even among thos e 11ho have
disc erne d anti -cle rica lism or relig ious indi ffere nce in
~/ Chau cer's work s (see page s 31-3 3, abov e) ther e is the
ackn owle dgem ent that he main taine d a vita l conn ectio n with
the chur ch. For insta nce, Tatl ock does not doub t that he
. went to mass on Sund ays _and holy days , enjo yed conf essio n
and comm union once a year , and woul d have want ed·· abso lutio n,
I

J!t
unct ion, and thJe via ti cum at deat h.3 I-:ary Edi th Thom as join s
with Tatlo ck and Canon Loot en in belie ving Chau cer~ o be
a good Cath olic and conc lude s her stud y of Chau cer's in-

volv emen t in med ieva l s1ceI Jt1ci sm on this note : "In the last
anal ysis , thou gh keen ly awar e of the inju stic es in life
and not deaf to the rati ona lists ' criti cism of ortho dox
.:
doct rine , Chau cer plac ed his fait h in Him who woul d 'fals en
no \vio:h t.1 " 4 In simi lar fasl1 ion Root obse rves this Chri stian
\.._.,

f idel~ ty in Chau cer in the state men t: "But th,1t he was and
rema ined , in his beli ef and hope s, in all esse ntia ls a
/,
'· .
Chri stian and a loya l Cath olic, ther e is no reas on to deny
•
t.

and no adea uate reas on to doub t."5 The foreg oing comm ents
-
..I.

....
by resp ecte d Ch~u cer stud ents, - toge ther with a care ful read -

ing of his worl{ s, give cons ider able vali dity to the claim
.,,.
.,

"''-......~. \

........______ ·-. \
',"\ ..
·,

.·~.

;,1 - '\
 \
42
~··

that he was a sincere Catholic. It follows that his very

sincerity implies more than a passing interest in the con-
ditions existent in the church at this time. Th2t his
interest in church matters was indeed considerable is
apparent from the abundance of his references to ecclesi-
•
astical persons, practices, or doctrines. 01' the twenty-
four com1Jlete or fragmentary tales of the C2..nterlbu1"ly Tales,

ten c.re told b~y individuals who are co11nected 1·ri th the

wss a focal point of medieval life, fo1~ a r1an of ",

"'LJ{18

such as Chaucer to draw unon this source ~o frequently in

lieu of other familiar aspects of contempor~ry life suggests
hisAconcern for the state of the church .
.
A carGful stud.y of Chauce:-:· 's 1'lo1~~(s reveals a spiritual
,

insight and religious aptitude that goes beyond a mere formal

: • i
'
adherence to the acee1Jted tenets Elnd. nrc~ctices of the chu-,--ch.
~ ~

·,
. ',..

This cuality of spiritual a~~reness, which certainly implies.

~a sensitivity to the reli~ious frQudulency of the period,
is prevalent in wany of the poet's vll'i tings [:nd eE,peciallJ'

In the M2n o~ Law's Tale his de-

f -

parture fr'orn hi~) ::ou1. . ce, Tr·ivct, consists of r.uch ad,~:itions

-
as a len5thy pnesage based on scripture concerning divine
providence (B 1 • 470-476, 484-490). Throu5hout the story

the "wyl of Crist II and the direct i n t e r ~ ~ o f God are \

interposed to- show the supernatural influence upon the

..•
I
'\

!'•.

,. 1
 43
.
,'h:~..... ,. .

lif e of~ a ser van t of the Almighty (Bl . 511, 523,.~538, etc .).
Th is hig h res pec t for the sup ern Qtu ral is ind ica ted aga in
in the tel lin g of the Pr ior ess ' t: Ta le, i.rh ich bea rs no t a
tra ce of sat ire wh ere it mig ht be exp ect ed. Som eth ing
of the dep th of Ch auc er' s rel igi ou s fai th may be fel t in
the Inv oca cio ad 1v1ariarn of tl1e· Sec ond ~un~~ Pro log ue,

wh ich Ch auc er per son aJ: ize d i\ri th his lin es: ".And tho ugh

thc .t I, un\ Ior thy son of Eve / Be syn ful , yet acc ep· ~e my

bil ev e" (G, 62- 63) . One rom me nta tor has bee n moved to make
thi s ob ser vat ion on the pas sag e: "Th e ma gni fic ent p.t aye r--o
ne
of the no ble st and mo st be au tif ul pas sag es ·of dev oti on al
,,,:
po etr y in our ton gue --w as Cha U~ er 's o}n1. rr6 The Po. rso n' s
Ta le, wi th its str aig htf orw ard ser mo n on pen ite nce and its
tre 2ti se on the Sev en De adl y Sin s cou ld no t pre sen t the
ort hod ox vie wp ·oin t in a mo re sin cer e mct nnc r. Fo, llow ing
in clo se ste p wit h sin cer e ort hod oxy is the co ntr ite re-
.. \ .,
.
pen t~n ce of the Re tra cti on s, wh ich pro vid es the clo sin g of

t:ie Cu nte rbu ry pil5 ri1n c_g e vri th a dra ma tic su1 'ge of rel
igi ou s
.)
fer vo r.
Alo ng vri th the se· sam :pli ngs of the po et' s sp iri tua l
J .
'

po stu re, two com me nts by the em ine nt Ch auc eri an, F. N,. -,
,.

Ro bin son , seem apr opo s. Of the Sec ond Nu n's Ta le he re-
-- - -- -
fle ets : '' ••. and ·th e tru ly rev ere nt sp iri t of the na rra tiv
e--
wh ich was not dra ma tic all y com pos ed for the Nu n-- sho uld
be
tak en int o acc oun t by tho se cri tic s who thi nk of Ch auc er

•
...
. . ' ·- ~· '
 . ,:·-/'·1· .. ·, '.•,. .- . . '. ··, ', '\ ... •'•,,'. ,.,·,•,: .'>' • · • ' \ , , . ; ..;_,!,;_"),' '!•.•.! ~ ,-~,:c.\,!. _.,,.,, , · ; · , .• , •·••·•-•--~•' -,·,u

-~ . ....
..
. 44
•

.;::,
...J
as out of sympa thy with the relig ion of his age. 11 7 Again ,
in r~1er enoe to Chau cer's closin g comment in the Troil us,
he state s: "It is a Chris tian couns el to fix the heart upon
the unfai ling love of God.· The earne stnes s of the appea l '

and the eleva tion of.it s mood leave no doubt of Cha1i cer's
. Q
essen tially relig ious spiri t."u In view of the ebove
affirm ation s that Chauc er took his rel1g 1on1s er1ou sly, it
would seem highl y doub tful that he held only a light regar d
for the abuse s in relig ion that surrou nded him.
Perha ps Chauc er is even demo nstrat ing a spiri t of re-
form in the prese ntatio n of his men of the churc h in stark
black -and- white . What could have provo ked heart ier disgu st
·,.,I
·I

for the braze n hypoc risy of the P&rdo ner than to place him
in the Cante rbury pilgri mage to be compa red with the de-
voutl y pure Pa.rso n? So .clea rly have degre es of sin been

disce rnibl e in Chau cer's cleri cs that criti cs have been able
to rank these men on a sc&le of impio usnes s. Garla nd Ethel
in his ri.rtic le, "Cha1 1cer"s 1Norst e Shrew e: the Pardo ner, u9

finds suppo rt from I{ittr edge, Lov1es, and Tv:rilone in appra is- l
I
ing t~e P~rdo ner as the most depra ved of the clergy men. I
I

I
' ( The Friar is next in. this curlo1:1s ranl(i n5 for his pf'act icing J
I

of sins· on other s. Bette r th9..n the Friar is the Monk whose

'"

~ pride and glutto ny resul t' gene rally in self~ injur y. Of·~
.-
cours e, the P2rso n st~nd s alone as the only man of the cloth
'
who is fit to exhor t again st the sins of the other s. It is

...
• \i
,', ..
 ' .... _.,,,.,, ... , ·1-. •--·<>·• - ___ ,,...,,~·-,.- ·-- ·~ ,_. -· ,.,,... ,.,.,.,,,-, .. _,.,,,

. \

• I

4.5

ti

tn this darin g, forth right style 1n depic ting the relig ious
that Chau ber's metho d 1s ·rema rkably .simi lar to that of
advoc ates of reform like Wycl if, Savan arola, and Fo_xe.
\

To sugge st th~t Chauc er on occas ion mani fests some of

. ' >-
the chara cteri stics of a relig ious reform er .is not to sugge st
"
.
that he was a true Prote ~tant or even a relig ious radic al.
That ~is was a conse rvativ e appro ach to reform in the.ch urch
- , \ )

is evide nt in his relat ionsh ip to Wycl if (see Chapt er II,

...

above ), for even this suppo sed "here tic" was a pilla r of

conse rvatis m. In Chau cer's obvio us sympa thy with the re-
forme r he is actua lly embra cing ortho doxy accor ding to
Owst 's analy sis of Wycl if's preac hing, in which he repor ts
that "it is amazi ng to recko n up the numbe r of minor doc-

trine s and ideas suppo sed to be chara cteri stic of \iycli f •••
which are nothi ng more nor less than pulpi t comm onplac es
of the ortho dox. ulO Chau cer's caref ul avoid in~..__.. of those
1s,ue s on which vlycli f vvas at varia nce with the churc h
~
place s him safel y in the conse rvativ e camp. It is inter est-
ing to note tr1at throu ghout the Pa1~so11' s Tale, from which
. \

···muc h of Chs.u cer 's Wycl ifi te lee.nin e; ,~a11 be trace d, St. Augus -
tine is f, moet often cited of the autho ritati ve churc h
fa.the rs. It .·.ra's St. Augu stine who was invari e_bly cited
1

by Luthe r and by other refor mers to su:r:po rt a ccn2- ervati ve

posit ion.
I

'Not only does Chau cer's favor able attitu de towar d

./·
I- • • . : .. ~

7 . .
'i. -~·
._.... !.'

, . . 'l
,( . \
 • - •' . . •. '*"""' , •... · . ..
' • ''" •·. ~,,,.... ,,, ... ,i, . ·.. ~ ,_\ ,- .. ; •': . . ..·· ·. ,.:."-:.'.." ..

), 4 6

. .
W yc lif of fe r pr oo f of th e po et 's co ns er va
tiv e ten ¢1 .en cie s,
bu t it al so re fl ec ts th e ef fe ct of th e
En gl is h po li ti ca l
si tu at io n on hi s sta n· d ag ai ns t th e ch ur
ch 's po we r. W hi le
W yc lif wa s un do ub te dl y im pe lle d in pa rt
by po li ti ca l co m m it-
m en ts in ch am pi on in g th e st at e ov er th
e ch ur ch (s ee pa ge J,,
I

16 , ab ov e) , Ch au ce r was bo un d by a much
st ro ng er ob lig at io n
to ta ke th e pe rt of hi s go ve rn m en t. He
was em pl oy ed th ro ug h .,D ,

~
m os t of hi s li fe by th e cr ow n and re ce tv e9
- pa tro na ge fro m
9
th at st ro ng fi gu re of st at e, Jo hn of Ga <S·,
un t. It ha s be en 11
\o
D
D

su gg es te d by Ea xf ie ld th at Ch au ce r's gu II

id in f pu rp os e in 1i~

.. .,
at ta ck in g th e cl er gy is to ·a vo id of fe nd
in 3 Ga un t. Th us ,
th e sa tir e ag 2i ns t th e fr ia rs an d pa rd
on er s an d th e humor
po in te d at th e re gu la r cl er gy we re co nc
ei ve d so as to be
ac ce pt ab le to Ga un t si nc e fr ia rs an d
ps .rd on er s \·:ere of te n
fo re ig n ap po in te es . On th e ot he r ha nd
, a se cu l2 r of th e
ty pe of th ~ Pe rs on wo ul d pr ob ab ly be En zl
is h; so he is
· 11
fa vo ra bl y de pi ct ed . W ith ou t qu es tio n, Ch au ce r, an in -
te ll ig en t man of th e co ur t, wo ul d be in
flu en ce d to a de gr ee
by po li ti ca l re al iti es , bu t hi s us e of sa
ti re an d un co m pl i-
me nt ~r y humor do es no t fo llo w cl ea r po li
ti ca l li ne s. Fo r
ex am 1) le, 111 s vr or ld ly I-lank an d af fe ct ed
Pr io re s 3 ar e as
En gl is h af th e Pa rs on , bu t th ey do no t
re ce iv e th e fl ~t te r-
.,•
in g tre at m en t of tl1e go od man of re lig
io n. I-tad ·ch al ic er
be en pu rs u1 n5 on ly po li ti ca l t~ te re st s
in th e ch ar ac te r- .
.
iz at io ns 1n th e Ca nt er bu ry Ta le s, th e J
-.)

~~owma~ of th e Ge ne ra l

•.
\. ..
I
1. .
 ' -

47

Pro log ue {se e pag e 17, abo ve) wou ld not 1av e bee n pra ise d
·-
as an ide al Ch rist ian (A. 529-541) in vie~1 of the Pea san ts'
l
~"
/

Rev olt of 138 1, whi ch was dir ect ed aga ins t Cha uce r's soc ial
pee rs. "\f

As a wl1 ole, the ind ica tio ns tha t Cha. uce r was a sin cer e
con ser vat ive end owe d wit h a mea sur e of spi ritu al sen si-
ti vi t: 7
, yet bou nd to an age rif e ,,vi th SIJi .ri tua l ine on-
si st0 nc ie s, lea d one to the con vic tion tha t the 1Jo et's

bol d ass aul ts on the cle rgy ref lec t his des ire to see ecc les i-

(
/as tic al abu ses cor rec ted . Un que stio nab ly, pol i tica .l
pre ssu res and lite rar y art act as inf lue nce s on Cha uce r's
por tra yal s of the rel igi ous in the Can terb ury Tal es, bu t.
in com bin atio n wit h the se for ces is a com pel ling dri ve to
exp ose and lay ope n the fes ter ing sor es of t~e chu rch , so
tha t the hea ling pro ces s may be5 in. Even in ca§ es where the
nee d for cor rec tiv e act ion is not so evi den t as in oth er
ins tan ces , the pro bin g kni fe of sat ire goe s abo ut its qui et
·Wo rk. Sin ce the re is lit tle con clu siv e evi den ce tha t ., Cha uce r
)

is atta cki ng spe cif ic ind ivi dua ls in the chu rch , per hap s
a bri ef con sid era tio n of some of the abu ses at whi ch- he
see ms to . be str iki ng w111 · ind .ica ·te are as whe re a nee d for

refo rm is imp lied ~

Wit hou t ~ue stio n the Pri ore ss rec eiv es gen tler tre at-
r--..._
men t tha n any 6f tho se con nec ted wit h the chu rch who are
.,
exp ose d to the edg e of Cha uce r's sat ire . In the des Jrip tio n -.(-
- -

.........

,
__

•
 48

giv en her in the Gen era l Pro log 4e (A. 118 -16 2) not hin g
der oga tor y app ear s con cer nin g her gen tle dem ean or, her sin g-
ing of div ine ser vic e, or eve n her rid icu lou sly per fec t
;r
tab le man ner s. Yet the re seem s to be a stra ine d pre ten tio us-
;

nes s imp lied in the . imp res sio n the Pri ore ss end eav ors to make
in the lin es:
And pey ne~ [ita lic s min ~ hir e to cou ntr efe te che ere
Of cou rt, and to bee n est atl ich of man ere,
P..nd to ben hol den dig ne of rev ere nce ( A. 139 ~·14 1) •
.
Sin ce eac
•
h of the inf ini tiv e phr ase s is rel ate d to the ver b
peyne·d, the mea nin g 1 s tha t the Pri ore ss by con sta nt, con -
,,
sci ous eff ort imi tate d the beh avi or of the cou rl.~ -ca r~e d --"------ . ------- -

her sel f wit h dig nit y, and was con sid ere d to be wor thy of
rev ere nce . How eve r, in spi te of her eff ort s the re are in-
dic atio ns tha t her con sec ratl on has bee n on her o,m term s.
. t
'fl
Con trar y to chu r·ch reg ula tio ns wer e the we ll-f ed "sm ale
hou nde s," the gau dy "pe ire of bed es, " and the shi ny "b1 ooc h 1

o.-f gol du ,vit h its que stio nab le mo tto: "Amor' vin cit om nia ."

.Alt hou gh Sis ter l~d ele va ear nes tly end eav ors to jus tify eac h
of the se inc ons iste nci es of the Pri ore ss (in the lig ht
of pre sen t-d ay Cat hol ic pra cti ce) , ·eve n t8 the ext ent of

dec lari ng the bro och to be a l1ol y med al, 1 2 t11i s doe s nbt
bel ie the f 2.ct -thu t the abo ve- men tion ed '
1
~
)0 s r: ess ion s wer e
exp res sly frow ned upo n by the fou rtee nth -ce ntu ry chu rch in ~

var iou s-v isit atio ~s and inj unc tio ns. 13 Sur ely Cha uce r wou ld 'Cl

not hav e call e& atte nti on to the se item s wit h no pur pos e in

i'
~ '
·,
:; ~··...;..
. ·:

l
,;.
" :·
..... ... r;::-·

' - .,,
·,:" ·, .. ::.;
" ,. ·
-',

.
 49 -

min d. In the des crip tive line : "But sike rly she hadd e a .
fair forh eed " (.~. 154 ) not only is the lad y's ~be auty be.i ng

poin ted out , ~ut Cha uce r's aud ienc e is rem inde d tha t the
nake d fore hea d of this reli gio us sho uld not hav e been
visi ble in such wor ldly f~sh ion. The re lurk s also the
pos sib ilit y of furt her iron y in the fac t, sug ges ted by
Sch oeck , tha t the Prio ress cou ld evin ce an urtu sual tend er-
·-':-
nes s of feel ing tow ard a mouse or one of her dog s (A. 143 -
150 ) and yet be cap able of exp ress ing a fier ce big otry to-
-ward the ~~ws in the tale she rela tes: a big otry spe cifi call y
..
cond emn ed by sev eral pop es. 14 <

Whi le Cha ucer may· be sub tle in·h is exp osur ~ of pre ten-

tiou sne ss and big otry in the Prio ress , he is alm ost blu nt

in rev eali ng tlre self -ind ulg enc e and wor ldli nes s of the Mon}~.
Thi s "lor d- ful fat, " in defi anc e of his vov1s of pov erty ,
.,.,
mai ntai ned a st :J.ble fill ed with "fu l manJr a dey ntee hor- s"
- and dres sed imm acu late ly in ga1,..ments trim med with "gry s, and

tha t the fyn este of a lon d," to say noth ing of his e):p ensi ve

"bo otes sou ple. " vli th this sple ndid des crip tion app ears
a note of clev er sign ific anc e in Cha uce r's com p~ri son of
soun ds in the acco unt of the 1:il1on:r' s r'lidi n;,::
........
r-- ------
.And whan he rood , men myg hte his bry del hee re
Gyn glen in a whl stiy nge wynd als flee re
.And eel{ as loud e as doo th the cha pel bel le (A. 169 -171 ).

Inde ed, the imp lica tion may be tha t the clam or of' wor ld-
line ~s in· the clo iste r was beco min g as ldud as the call to

./·

-~
 50

devotion. Al though there appears to be merit, in Beichner' s

contention that the Monk's ffeedom from normal monastic

discipline may be explained by his beine; an outrider, "the
organization man" of the cloister, the author concludes that

the T,ionk "has succumbed to the occupational disease of those

religious who deal with the worldly--worldlines s •• , , 111 5

Th2_t the l-Ionlt' s cli se2se has been complicated by self-indul- i

. '
'

gence is indicated by his disdain for v1orl~ and his "lust"

',,

for "prikying and huntying for the hare. " As if to empha-

size his lack of appetite for spiritual things, the passage

describing him ends on this note: "A fat svre.n loved he

\
best of any 1/")oost" (A. 206).
0

Chaucer's references to friars seem to 3ive evidence

of feelings on the poet's part that go deeper than a mere

desire to report contemporary' charges again~t the mendi-
cant arm of the church. There seems rather t~ be a con-
"

scious effort to reveal the hi:hly mercenary appro~ch to

the spreadins of the go s-pel, the light-hearted raL-;cali ty of

cl63r:c .. ; "\.:;:ose motives stand in questio11. Fria·r Huberd not r

..
only v12.s nan es~y man to yeve penaunce," 'but especially so
11
ther as he v1iste to hc:.ve a 500d pi te.unce" (l:... 223-224).
·-
Each, ~i.S)., of relic;ious service performed by l1inJ c-t"lJears to
q

be rn9as·L11·~·.b·le in u1onetar·v v&lues. In the lu.dicrous tale ·-~

•
- u

t_
~:
I'
of Friar J\~n, the emphasi~ seems to be on thi par~si!ic
,, ' . .
nature of e.r1 or··:ler of e e c le si as ti o s v-.rh i c:h · C\.T f 2.i th· or
1

·"'1
,,:
... ,j. ,' . . • '. .,,,,.··'''.
i
 \f :I).',~~.>~:;·),; .-:) •; -,,_,. -::/·•\ . t· ',',
·-···1· t·· • • ,,,'.,~.~-.' • ',' ::'·.:. _;:'~···· '.. ',,·},:~·'")-.:.,:·.:· '•\:', .\.·.:'.'/l.
. . •. ,; .·. ·. ·,,_,'),'" •/_.·>.· -,.··, --:1, . ·; .
. .'1.·'\.i'··'··
,-·· . ....,''•1.'/ j/ I

'
,, ',-,
. :
·; . ·)

foresight emplo·yed a. "sturdy hEtrlot" wbo "bar-a sak / And·

J

what men yaf hem, leyde it on his bak" (D. 1755-1756) •

./

Amusingly, as each gift was tendered, the donor's name was

'

gravely inscribed on an ivory tablet to indicate

"·
that special
prayer would be made later for those so enrolled. Then with-
out compunction, once out of· sight the good friars planed
l
th~' narJe s av12.'J. Such a cheap betrayal of fe.i th seems
'\) .
properly rewarded by the embittered Thomas' elusive contri-
bution. The delightfully ironic suggestion of~the lord's
squire for dividing the gift seems to imply that Chaucer,
for one, is prepar~d to place a commensurately lisht eval-
uation on the light attitude of the mendicant orders toward
I
suiritual
... mctters.
.,,
The hareh tre2tment of the Summoner may indicate, as
Haselmayer deduces, that Chaucer is attackins a particular
~ officer of the church. 16 However, the uninhibited frater-
' ~

nizine; \,;1th the Devil of the Etnonymous surumoner of the

;,

Friar's. ·J:ale seems to imply that Chaucer is 2.52.in striking

at the abus~ more than the abuser. In this instance graft,
perpetr2ted a5ainst a background of immorality, is evident
•

fro!TI the nc1.tur·e of the sunlilloner's position it,self (see page

I
4, above). The summoner, Q~ a~p~ritor,
. . given the power .t~ '

.
\ serve summons for ecclesiastical court:,s, vras permitted no

regular salary, but largely depended upori commissions for

·- . his income~ Thus, the ·stage is set for the summoner of.the

. .-,, ~ . ·;. . ......

\ '.
'J,

/
 )

52. ·

Friar's Tale to work in collusion with the prostitutes of

the town to t·l.aclcmail their paramours (D, 1355-1362) and to
l{now "of briberyes mo / than possible 1 s to tel le in yeres .

two" (D. 1367-1368). In the de script ion of the Summoner

·,

of the pilgrimage (A. 623-668) it is suggested that these

officers, along 1111 th stooping to make mone.tary gain from
; the immoral practices of pthers, might themselves be found
a

guilty of drunkenness and lewdness on occasion. Inter-

spersed 1111 th these charges are the details of the Summoner's

loathsome appearance, as though Chaucer is of the opinion

•

/
that the man's loose living is doing tremendous physical .,

damage to him. Perhaps here the poet is in a larger sense

\'
expressing ,an awareness that the constant abuse of the office
o•f summoner ,ias at this very ti.me bringing about its,,, self~
.
J
destruction. Indeed, the office ceased to exist altogether
soon after Chaucer's day.
The Summoner's comrade, the Pardoner, presents a stil.l

'\•
·more wretched
, picture. Here is a man with a physical de-

" ~· formity, who for vengeance vents his hellish pride in

knowingly deceiving a gullible publ\.c by religious fraud-
ulency. This churchman with the seared conscience even has

the audacity to reveal the falsity of his relics to the .

Canterbury travelers (C. 347-351), only to conclude·-his tal:e
with this astonishing invitation~. ' Jt

Com forth anon, and kneleth heere adoun, (

And mekely receyveth my pardoun;
Or elles taketh pardoun as ye ,vende (C. 925-927)·.
 , .. • . ' , ,•n .,

53

It has been sugge sted by Mi.lle r tha_t the Pardo ner's defor mity,
,, ·- :.

the eunuc hry indic ated in his.p hysic al descr iptio n, may be

the Irey to the spiri tue. l myste ry that Chauc er is probi ng

into here. If so, the Pardo ner emerg es as a spiri tual
eunuc h in the sense that he typif ies the unpar donab le cleri c >
,.;
I

who, thoug h fully aware of the value of good works , delib -

erate ly refus es to brin~ forth sons into the kingdo m of
~·
heave n. 1 7 Even if such an alleg ory were not spec ifica lly in-
p- ........... -

tende d by Chauc er. it seems obvio us that throu gh ~is por-

I

traya l of the Pardo ner he is in open comba t with cleri cal

profe ssion alism of the bases t sort: that which can barte r
relig ious funct ion for filth y lucre and gain satis facti on ..
from the hypoc risy of the act.
In evalu ating Chau cer's satir ical attac ks o.n the abuse s

of the clerg y, it is nearl y impo ssible to measu re his con-

tribu tion to the strug gle for churc h reform . Even i~he
..

ideal izing of the Parso n Chauc er has been found to be addin g

to the alrea dy consi derab le bulk of his corre ctive satir e:
"Abov-~ all, the v11:i.a ge Pa.rso n, whose noble perso nality is

made up of negat ions or abste ntion s: he did not ex.9ommunicate

~
those who refus ed to pay him their tithe ; nothi n5 could
/

preve nvh-i -mfro m visit ing his poore st paris hione rs; he did
not do himse lf what he forba de other s to do; he did not
forsa ke his flock to go to Londo n, an~ so forth . In these
,.
prais es given to one man are co~ta ined repro aches for ,l

'i
I l
!
.· i
\
·.j
,..;_<_
.. ,
\
.!l,
..,·
l
<I i,
,, 1

. '
 .
~.
;''. ' .• •.· . '°'. i '• ' ~ ;'. '1 . .' '1 . I
' .

54

1)

hund reds of othe rs. nlB Al thou gh the sins of the clerg y were
common subj ect matt er for writ ers of the four teen th cent ury,
Chau cer's need le-sh arp sati rica l wit clea nly sepa rates his
work from the blun t assa ults of his cont emp orar ies. An apt
comp ariso n has been draw n by H. s. Ben nett: "If we read
any of Lang l~nd 's vehe ment outb urst s agai nst the fria rs,
and then turn to such a pas~ age as the open ing line s of the
\

Wife of Ba.th ' s Tale , we cann ot fail to not·e how the urba ne
--- -
iron ic thru sts of Chau cer are more dead ly than the blow s
of Lang land , desp ite the hurl y-bu rly of word s whic h accompany
the latt er's effo rts." 1 9 Undo ubte dly, it is this arti stic
" .

keen ness of his thru sts that rend ered them surp risin gly
pain less to bish ops who coul d cons id.er his work as "jes ts
J
and toys " (see page 24, aboi} e). Yet, to purs ue a true
Chau ceria n iron y, the very shar pnes s whic h made the sati re
'agr eeab le to the care less cler ic chan ged the poe t's pen to
a deat h-de aling refo rme r's swot d. This is not to say that
the poet cons ciou sly enl~ sted in the army of the Refo rmat ion
in the mann er of Wyc lif, Huss , or Luth er. Inste ad, his
•

hone st desi re for a retu rn to puri ty in the- c}~urch comb ined

.
with his skil l as a sati rist to prod uce a capa ble free -lan ce
figh ter for relig ious refor m. Perh aps his effe ctiv enes s
f

afie ld in the batt le agai nst eccl esia stic al corr upti on is
~

best summed up in this obse rvat ion by Loun sbury : "But whil e
' .

the doct rine of ·wyc liffe went out _in fire and bloo d, the

' .

•••

. ~· -
 ,.1,·,: ,"II, - "·~ .. ~ ,.._~ .... ·"~''"'''''-'·~-_..,,q-, ....... ~ ... ,_,, .,.,1.~: ·-. .._.-,, ... •.•-"--""' .... ~ ..... , '- •..

55

\ slow and sappi ng irony of the Cante rbury Tales worke d con-
,,
i:
I

tinuo usly unhee ded and unche cked, and often , indee d, cheri sh-
ed by the very men 1 t destr oyed. n20

.•:.

-~:

·,.

-~ .i
.I
,.
/·

.
., .:
.....
··:
! .

·'t.
~
::i

·\.

I
•
I'
 J4

.t.
.
..... -

.l
....

FOOTNOTES
./"

Chapter I
·•
. .

l G. _G. Coulton, Chaucer and his England, 4th ed. ~-

(London, 1927), p. 297.

~
H. s. Bennett, Life on the English lv1anor (Cambridge,
1938), p. 325.
3 G. R. Owst, Preaching!!! Medieval England (Cambridge,
1926), p. 33.
4 Owst, Preaching, p. 36.
5
L. A. Haselmayer, "The Appari tor and C:ha·uoer is:
Summoner," Speculum, XII (1937), 52-53. ·
6 H. s. Ward, The Canterbury Pilgrimages (London,
1927), p. 209.
7 E. Rickert, Ch~ucer's World (New York, 1948),p. 379.
B .G. G. Coul ton, Medieval Panorama (New York, 1945),
. P •• 17·s.
9 G. G. Coulton,--.Life in the ~liddle Ages, Vol. I
(Cambridge, 1931),96 •. 4

10 H. s."\Bennett, Chaucer and the Fifteenth Ce-ntury

(London, 1947), p. 23. . " , ..
11 Bennett, Life, p. 332. /

'
12 A. Wil·:J-iams, "The 'Limitour' of Cl1aucer' s Time and
his 'Limi tacioun, '" Studies !£ Philology, LVII (1960), 470.
13 Coulton, Life, Vol. IV, 127.
,,-,-- ti

14 Caul ton, Chaucer, p. 142.

. I
,..... j
j:;
,. i"-· . , ,_, .

15 Col1lton, Chaucer, pp. 142-143.

f

·16 R. D. French, A .,.Chaucer Handbook

\-;,
p·. 36.
c, .
- (Nev.r Yorlr, 1947),

·.,,

;':_.
· 17 R. K. Root, The Poetry 2f. ChE~ucer (Boston, 1906), ..
-~. p. 10 •
.•
-,_f

\
'!

~I._r·-':
,, .//
...
,:.~
 ,
.....

/
57
-~ .\
' •/" .. \

18 C. F. E. Spurgeo n, Five Hundred Years of Chauce r ,-

'I" .Critici sm and Allttsio n, Vol. I ~Cambr idge, 1925), xix.

· 19 Benpet t, Chauce r, p. 25. .1

20 Caul ton, Chauce r, p. 296.

21 Ricker t, pp. 373-37 4.
fl.

22 M. Chute, Geoflr ei Chauce r Qf fngland (New YoI'k,

1946.) , p. 201.

I
Chapter II
1 .
Such a view is held by R. D.' French. See his A
Chauce r Handbook (New York, 1947), pp. 37-42. -
2 Chute, p._ 200.
3 Coul ton, Chauce r, p. 307.
4 M. Burrow s, Wiclif 's Place 1E. History (London, 1884),
pp. 108-10 9.
5 Chute, p. 314.
6 Referen ces to or cuotati
.. ons from Chauce r's \vorks in ... .
my text are based on The Works of Geoffre y Chauce r, 2nd ed.,
ed. F. N. Robinso n (Cambr idge, Mass., 1957).
7 Chute, p. 202.

Chapter III

1 H. Simon, "Chauc er A Wiclif fite, 11

Essays on Chauce r,
Part III (London , 1876), ~27-29 2.
2 Simon, pp. 245-290 .
3 J.M. Manly, ed., 9.an.ter bury Tales {New York, 1928),
p. 528.
'

4 D. V. Ives, uA Man of Religio n, 11

Modern Langua:5e
Review, XXVII (1932), 144~148.

5 Ives, p. 147.
'. ""'·

• I'
J
I'

I
1, ~ • . ...,
 ·., f
t
I
t.
l.
t
·,
- 58 t',

6 T. R. Lounsbury, Stud ies in Chau cer, Vol. II (New

York , 1892 ), 476. 0
.--. 7 Spur geon , p • xx.
.) 8 SpJd rgeon , p. xx.
l. .:;-:
"·
·9 Loun sbur y, p. 474.
. ·'

10
L. B. Wrig ht, "Wil liam Pain ter and the Vogue of
Chau cer as a Mora l Teac her, " Mode rn Phil olo 0 y, XXXI (193 3),
171. -.~/
11 A. c. Dobb ins, "Dry den' s 'Cha racte r of a Good Pars on':
Back grou nd and Inte rpre tatio n," Stud ies in Phil olog y,
·:,·
LIII (195 6), 53.
12 F. Vil. Bonn er; "Cha ucer 's Repu tatio n duri ng the
Rom antic Peri od," Furm an Stud ies, LXXIV (195 1), 14.

Chap ter IV

Vol. II (Cam ·brid ge, 1955 ), 11.1·~~.1.4.

'"·
2 Know les, p. 11. 2:.
3 Know les, p. 114.
4. .
M. E. Thom as, 14ed ieval Skep ticis m and Chau cer (New
York , 1950 ), p. 5.
5 Loun sbur y, p. 520.
6
Loun sbur y, p. 522.

7
R. S. Loom is, "Was Chau cer a Laod icean ?" Essa ys and
Stud ies in Hono r of Carl eton Brow n (I\Jew York , 1940 ), pp. 129-
148. --
8 J. S. P. Tatl ock, "Cha ucer and Wyc lif," Mode rn Phil olog y,
XIV (191 6), 257- 268. ~

:) 9 The Poet Chau cer (Lon don, 1949 ), p. 178.

lO "Cha ucer and the Fria rs," Spec ul!1m , XXV III (195 3),
L~49-513 .
., -,
..L J_
\. .,.,, WiJl iams , SpecBlum, p. 513.

··~
\'
•

.,,, ........... ,,.. .

 . .
f \ .,

\
·59

• I

12 Root, p. 29 •
•
13 H. R. Patch , Q!l Rerea ding ·Chau cer (Cam bridge , Mass. ,
1939) , p. 222.
14 ~1odern Langu age Note.. s, XXXVI (1921 ), 475-4 81.
15 Cox, p. 481.

Ch·ap ter V

1 Thoma s, p. 97.
2 Chute , p. 87.
I"

3 Tatlo ck, p. 268.

4 Thoma s, p. 130.
5 Root, p. ~t? •.
.,.
.6· G. H. Gerou ld, Chauc erian Essay s ( Pr i nee ton, 19 5.¢:.)._,
·p •.4.

7 Robin son, pp. 14-1,5 .

n
(; Robin son, p./ 3i3S.

9 MQde rg Langu age guar~ _~rly, XX (1959 ), 211-2 27.

lO G. R. Owst, Liter ature and Pulpi t. in Medie val En5la nd

(Camb ridge, 1926) , p. 239, n. 1.
ll E. If. Maxf ield, "Chau cer and Relig ious Refor m, 11
lMLA,
XXXIX (1924 ), 70.
12
. M. Made leva, "Chau cer's Nuns, " A Lo st Langu a~e and
Other· Essa;{ s of Chauc er (New York, 1951) , pp. 43-4 .

13 E. P(t Kuhl, "Note s on Chau cer's Prior ess," Philo logic al.,
'
Quar terly, I-II (1922 -1923 ), 302-309 •
. ., ·/
\.
14 R•.,,J. · Schoe c1r, "·c11a ucer' s Prior
ess: i-re1"lcy and Tende r
Heart ," Cl1auce1"' Critic ism, ed. R. H. Schoe cl{ and J. Tctylo r
(Notr e Dame, India na, 1960) , pp. 250-254.
l5P. E. Beich ner, "Daun Piers , 1',Ionk anc Busin ess Admin -
1 strat or," Specu lum, XJC.XIV (1959 ), 619.

. ~, ,;.·
• #'
 •, - • • • ,. ·- ff. , , . , . , . . , . ,. . . . . :/''·"', ··.,••

• . #

·60

·-
16 Hasel mayer , p. 57.
1 7 R. P. Mille r, "Chau cer's Pardo ner, the Scrip tural
Eunuc h, and the !:.ard oner's Tale,; ," Specu lum, }8(.X (1955 ), 186.
18 E. Legou is, Gepff re;L .Chau cer (Lond on, 1928) , p. 156.
19 Benn ett, Chauc er, pp. 21-22 . r
.,::

20 --
Louns bury, p. 476.

I
I
I

•.

i,

'"'.
. :0-C ·=
\.

..

...
'
·":

l
I
j
l .
I .f
·.-,,-----

,, I o•

I
 61
I

-
LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED

Beichner, P. E. "Daun Piers, Monk and Business Administrator,"

Speculum, ·xxxrv (1959), 611-619.
-
Bennett, H. S. Chaucer and the Fifteenth Century. London, "

1947.
. .

• Life gn the English Manor • Cambridge, 1938.

Bonner, F. W. "Chaucer's Reputation during the Romantic

Period," Furman Studies, )CCCIV (1951), 1-21.

Bowden, M. ! Commentary Q.E. the General Prologue to the

Canterbury Tales. New York, 1949.
.
Burroivs, I111. Wiclif's Place ill History:. London, · 1884.

Chute, I'1. Geoffrei Chaucer Qf. England. New York, 1946.

Coghill, N. The Poet Chaucer.

,/
London, 1?49.
Coul ton, G. G. Chaucer and his En5land, 4th ed. London, 1927.
---..-· Life ill the rJ1iddle .Ages. 4 vols. Cambridge, 1931 •
• Medieval Panorama. New York, 1945.
----
Cox, S. H. "Chaucer's Cheerful ·cynicism," Modern Language
}Totes, x_xxvr (1921) ,· 475-481

Dobbins, 1\. C. uDryden' s 'Character of a Good Parson':

Background and Interpretation," Studies in J>hilology,
LIII (1956), 51-59~
Ethel, G. "Chaucer's W(jrste Shrewe; the Pardoner, u Modern
Language Quarterly, XX (1959), 211-227.
French, R. D. ! Chaucer Handbook. New York, 1947.
Gerould, G. H. Chaucerian Essays. Princeton, 1952.
Haselmayer, 1 .• A. "The Appari tor and Chaucer's Summoner,"
Speculu~, XII (1937), 43-57.
""
Howard, E. J. and G.D. Wilson, eds. The Canterbury
Tales.·New
",
Yorlr, 1947.

~-·

()

-
. .._; •· . \, '. ~ ·'
 j ...
·- I '•

62
,. ~

11
Ives, D. V. "A ],fan of Religion, r,iodern Langua..ge. Review,
XXVII (1932), 144-148.
Kellogg, A. L. ".4.11 Augustinian Interpretation of Chaucer's
Pardoner, " Spe~ulum, X1.'VI (1951), 465-481.

and_ L. A. Haselmayer. "Chaucer's Satire of the

_P_a_r_d-oner," Pl1LJ., U.'"Vt (1951), 251-277. i

Kittred5e, G. L. Chaucer and his Poetry. Cambridge, Mas·s.• ,

19 21,.•. "\

Knowles, Dom D. The -Religious Orders in England, Vol. II.

Cambridge, 1955. -
Kuhl, E. P. "Cha.ucer and. the Churcl1," I.Codern Lclnguar;E:_ I~otes,
XL (1925), 321-336.
• "Notes 0!·1 Cl1aucer 's Pr.ioress, n Philological
~Q-~-a-r-terly, ·I-II· (1922-1923), 302-309.
Legouis, E. Geoffrey C11a.ucer, London, 192 3. 1

Loomis, R. s. "\~/els Cl12.ucer · a Laodicean?" E;~ ~-2.;.r s s.nd Studies

in HonoP of Carleton Bro1·r11. l,Tehr Yorl~, 1940, lJP• 129-148.
- ------
LounBbury, T. R. Studies in c:1aucer, Vol. II. :~e\i Yorl-:, 1892.
- -
r~1adelev.,~--, :.:. "Chc.ucer' s 1'Ttln2, 11 P:_ Lo st LE~nr;u..:~.r;e ~J_nd Otl1er
Es:jBJS Q.£ Chaucer. 1-Je\~r York, 1951, pp. 27-60. -
~,..a nl-r~' ' ·1:r
.. ·.L '-- J • .1.\4. ' ed. C2nterbu1:r.. ~~. I1ew York, 19 2-3.

• So 1r:e Li g1]j,_ Q.g_ Cl1 o_ u c er • 1Jew Yor}:, 1926.

,, .~ r -r f 1· e
1-.:.ci.r.. . n. • u s Re J..~ o r rr1, "
1 (:,L, E •. K~. ti C,n ;_~. . . l,,. v e ..1., e. n d_ Re 11· Ort lo J.
D
_;. ... . ·• "LA- ,
)C,C)C!J( ( 19 24), ~ 64-7 L~. \.
.,. p
l'i!iller, R•. P. "Cl1c'..ucer '.s Pardoner, the Scriptu1,,e~l Eunuch, _
a. nci tl-1e Pa.rdoner's To..le," S1Jeculum, ~-oc:·~ (1955), l S0-1~9. 1

Owst, G. R. Literature and Pul1)i t i11 r.~edie,r.~1.l Enrrl2.nd.

CEtrr1b1~1a.~e, 19 26. -
- - - - · Prec:.cl1ins ir1 I-:edieval Englc:nde C~:.mbrid5e, 1926.
/

Patc11, H. Ro On Rereading Ct2ucer. Car11br_idce, I-:9-. s s. , 19 39.

-- - --------
( Ri ck er t , E. Cl1 a tl c e 1.., ' s VT o r l d • Ne 11 Yo r k , 19 4'3 •
};

.,.

• ~-
~.
-·

,v
,·.
" ,,

'·
~~._._...------------------------------all!I------
'
j

I• ' \

6~.
. I

, : . ··r· .,, .. •D
,.,-/
Robi nson , F. N.·, ed. The Worlcs Q.f. Geof frey: Chau cer, ,/
2nd ed. Cam bridg e, Mas s., 1957. '

\ .
Root , R. K. The f2.,e1'rY. £!. .Cha. ucer . Bost on, 1906 .
Scho eck, R. J. "Cha Juce r's Prio ress : Mercy and Tend er Hea rt, 11
Chau cer Crit icism , ed. Re Ho Scho eck and J. Tayl or,
Notr e Dame, Indi ana, 1960, pp.· 245-258.
Shel ly, P. Van D. The Livi ng Chau cer. Phil adel phia , 1940~
Simo n, H. "Cha ucer A W1c liff1 te," Essa ys Q.!! Ch.a ucer, Part III.·
London, 1876, 227- 292. · ·
Spur geon , c. F. E. Five Hundred Year s of Chau cer Crit icism
and Allu sion , Vol. I. Cam bridg e, 19257
Tatlo cl:c, J. S. P. ucha ucer and Wyc lif, 11
Mode rn Phil olog y,
XIV (191 6), 257-268.
Thomas, M. E. Med ieval Skep ticis m and Chau cer. New York , 1950 . ·
Trev elya n, G. 1-1. Engl and ill the ~ 2f. !{yc liffe . Lond on, 1920 .
\vard , H. s. · The Ce~n terbu ry Pilg rima ges. Lond on, 1927 . ._F

Will iams , A. "Cha ucer and the Fria rs," Spec ulum , M"V III
(1953), 449-513.

-- -- •
11
The 'Lim i tour ' of Cha ucer 's Time and his 'Lim i tacio un,'
Stud ies in Phil olog y, LVII (196 0), 463-478.
11

Wrig ht, L. B. "Wil liam Pain ter and the Vogu e of Chau cer as a
, 1-ior al Teac her, u· ],fod ern Phil olog y, XYJ::I (193 3), 165- 174.

Yunc k, J. A. "Rel igiou s Elem ents in Chau cer's Man of Law 's
Tale ," Jour nal Q.f.E nglis h Lite rary Hist ory, xxvTI (196 0),
249- 261.
:.,

·~.

"".\•

.'
:,,,
~-

.,.
,-: .. .,., ...

=~.
 •

. .
. I
64
.,;i/-
·. •'_),' !'·".
:' :..

>' "' VITA

The writ er of this thes is, Talm adge· Burt on Pier ce,. Jr.,
..,

was· bo1~n to Talm adge Burt on and Mary Eliz abet h Pier ce on
November 26, 1926 , in Balt imor e, Mary land. His elem enta ry
l
and high scho ol educ ation was rece ived in Balt imor e County,
Mary land , and was comp leted with grad uatio n from Spa. rks

High Scho ol in 1943. From 1943 to 1946 he atten ded Cent ral
Bibl e Inst itut e, Spri ngfi eld, Miss ouri , grad uatin g with the
:,

thre e-ye ar min iste rial diplo ma •.,. Duri ng his subs eque nt em-
ploy ment at the Nava l Hydr ogra phic Offi ce in Suit land ,

i1arylEU1q., he atten ded Geo·rge Wash ingto n Uni vers i t~y on a

part -tim e basi s in 1950 and 1951. Havi ng enro lled at Flo-
. '
rida Sout hern Coll ege in Febr uary of 1952 , he grad uate d summa
. . . . ··-"

cum laud e as an Engl ish majo r in Augu st o~ the same year .

I...

Du.ri ng the inte rval beti: ,een 1952 and 1956 he serv ed as an

evan geli st and as a past or, rece i vine; ordi nati on as a mini .r y

ster of the Asse mbli es of God in 1955 . In addit 1o-n to his

min ister ial duti es he taug ht the seve nth grad e of publ ic
"'

scho ol at Kem psvil le, Virg inia, rir the l954 -55 sess ion,
afte r ,·1hic h he taug ht Engl ish in the Prin cess Anne Coun ty
I

High Scho ol, Virg inia , for the 1955-56 sess ion. For the
next four year s he serv ed as a dist rict yout h dire ctor for
.._,...,~

his deno mina tion. From 1960 to 1962 he was an inst ruct or
i

\ -
and Dean of 1.1en at· East ern Bibl e Inst itute ( sinc e renam ed
.
Nort heas t Bibl e Inst itute ), Penn sylv ania .· It
... ill'

• •

/
' \.·. ··:.::
'.
.. :
·'

. '
 , , . ,.. .......... ~ .,.., ,. ;'"'c1;;-1"·"•1~ • . ,.,.,~,;·""····'·'"·•'..c!.r;.. ..,,, .. ~~.,-·~~,- -.;. •11 t:

' I

I•

65
\

•·
was durin g this perio d that he began his gradu ate study at
" .

Lehig h Univ ersity . His 1v!ast er of Arts degre e in Engli sh is

.-·~ ~-

to be confe rred in Octob er, 1963. He is at prese nt the

·pasto r ·of the Calva ry 1-lsse mblie s of God Chu:rc h in Hamp ton,
\\

Virgi nia. He is happi ly marri ed to the forme r Miss Alma

Louis e Frey and is the fathe r of two fine sons; Phili p, 14, I>

and 1J.lark, 8.

,:
-·~ -
~J
......

"I\

)
·...

/
·!'·•

r,

....

·"CJ.

\·

•••