The Canterbury Tales

by Geoffrey Chaucer

  357–8 The idea that a secret is as if imprisoned while it is not revealed, but holds one imprisoned once it is spoken, is found in Albertano, Liber de doctrina dicendi et tacendi III.12. See also Whiting W626.

  359–60 This is another quotation from the Distichs of Cato (I.12a): ‘Rumores fuge neu studeas novus auctor haberi’ (‘Shun gossip and do not be keen to set it going’). The second line of the distich has already been quoted at Mcp 325–8 (see n.).

  THE PARSON’S PROLOGUE

  1–12 Both El and Hg read ‘Ten’ in line 5 instead of ‘Foure’, but the rest of the passage contains unequivocal indications that it is late afternoon. The error probably arose from a misreading of the arabic form for ‘4’ as roman ‘x’ (Manly and Rickert IV, 528). On the practice of measuring time by shadow-lengths and the angular height of the sun above the horizon, see n. to ML 1–4. Chaucer’s shadow is now eleven times one-sixth of his body height, and the sun has descended from the meridian (‘south line’), its noon-time position, to less than 29° above the horizon. The date is not given, but an altitude of 28–29° at 4 p.m. fits 15–17 April; the zodiacal sign Libra would be rising in the east at this time. However, this interpretation cannot be reconciled with the date of 18 April given earlier in ML 5–6. Moreover, the Manciple’s Prologue is timed in the morning (Mcp 16), and yet after the Manciple’s short tale it seems that it is already late afternoon. The passage contains yet another difficulty: the ‘mones exaltacioun’ (that is, the section of the zodiac in which the moon exercised greatest influence) was not Libra (which belonged to Saturn), but Taurus (Eisner, Kalendarium, pp. 32–3). Scholars disagree on whether (a) Chaucer simply made a mistake, or (b) the text should be emended (see North, Chaucer’s Universe, pp. 126–7). Another possibility is that Chaucer chose these details for their poetic resonances rather than for their astronomical accuracy. Thus 29° suggests the 29 pilgrims, the Moon suggests mutability, and Libra (the Scales) suggests the Last Judgement – all of which, together with the lengthening shadows and the approach of night, helps to create a sense that the pilgrimage and the tale-telling are drawing to their conclusion (Donaldson, Chaucer’s Poetry, pp. 948–9). CT begins with a reference to Aries, the sign in which the sun rises and sets at the spring equinox; it ends with a reference to Libra, the sign in which the sun rises and sets at the autumnal equinox.

  12 No village (‘throop’) is known to have existed between Harbledown (see n. to Mcp 1–3) and Canterbury.

  16 The Host’s comment implies that the original plan, that each pilgrim should tell four tales, has been abandoned; see GP 792–4 and n.

  22 vicary: The legal holder of a parochial benefice was called a rector or parson; he had ‘full freehold rights in the parochial revenues’ (including the right to assign them to others). A vicar (as the name implies) was ‘a replacement for a permanently absent rector’ and received only ‘a portion of the total income’ (R. N. Swanson, SAC, 13 (1991), 41–80, at pp. 48–9). An absentee rector might be an individual who (for example) held another ecclesiastical post elsewhere (cf. GP 507–11 and n.), or was studying at university, but rectorships were also often nominally held by ecclesiastical foundations, such as monasteries or university colleges, and in such cases the parish was served by a perpetual vicarage. Since the Parson has the power to ‘sette … his benefice to hire’ (GP 507) – though he does not do so – it appears that he is not a vicar but a rector.

  32–4 See 1 Timothy 1:4, 4:7, and 2 Timothy 4:4.

  35–6 D. W. Robertson (A Preface to Chaucer (Princeton, NJ, 1962), pp. 58, 316–17) cites biblical and patristic parallels to the wheat/chaff metaphor (cf. NP 3443 and n.), but Chaucer also uses it in secular contexts; see ML 701–2, LGW G 312, 529.

  39 that: In the case of two parallel subordinate clauses, ‘that’ is often used in the second clause as a substitute for the conjunction in the first clause (here, ‘if’ in line 37), with the meaning of the conjunction it replaces (see MED s.v. that conj 14a).

  43 rum, ram, ruf: The Parson is alluding to medieval English alliterative verse, which is metrically structured by stress and alliteration (rather than stress and rhyme). The most frequent type of line has four stressed syllables, three of which are linked by alliteration. The Parson’s comment in line 42 implies that alliterative poetry flourished in the North; modern scholarship usually associates it with the West of England (both the north-west and south-west), but Piers Plowman, for example, which is a major representative of the genre, has strong associations with London. See T. Turville-Petre, The Alliterative Revival (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 29–36.

  geste: see n. to Mel 933.

  51 The vision of heaven as a transcendental form of the city of Jerusalem derives from Revelation 21.

  69–70 All manuscripts have these two lines in the position they occupy here. However, Riverside (and other modern editions) accepts Manly’s suggestion (in his 1928 edition of CT) that they should be placed at the end of ParsPr, on the assumption that (my) line 70 refers to the Parson beginning to tell his tale. Against this, E. Brown has argued in favour of the manuscript position, on the grounds that normally Chaucer would explicitly signal a shift of speaker such as the emendation hypothesizes (ChauR, 10 (1976), 236–42). Although the phrase ‘And with that word’ usually refers to action accompanying or immediately following on a completed speech, it sometimes introduces additional speech, as here (cf. Phys 251–2, TC II.264–6).

  THE PARSON’S TALE

  The Parson’s Tale is not (as it is often called) a sermon; it does not conform to the rigid formal organization of medieval sermons. Rather, it is a treatise on penitence. It proceeds in logical order from an introductory discussion of penitence, contrition and confession, to an account of the Seven Deadly Sins (including their sub-species) and the virtues that counteract them, and concludes with a brief discussion of satisfaction. The various sections of the work may be set out schematically as follows:

  1. Penitence and Contrition (80–315)

  2. Confession and Types of Sin (316–86)

  3. Pride (387–474)

  Humility (475–83)

  4. Envy (484–514)

  Love (515–32)

  5. Wrath (533–653)

  Meekness and Patience (654–76)

  6. Sloth (677–727)

  Strength (728–38)

  7. Avarice (739–803)

  Mercy and Pity (804–17)

  8. Gluttony (818–30)

  Abstinence (831–5)

  9. Lechery (836–914)

  Chastity (915–57)

  10. Oral Confession (958–1028)

  11. Satisfaction (1029–80)

  The sources of the Parson’s Tale are complex (for a full discussion, see SA2 I, 529–34). The outer framework of the treatise (1, 2 and 11 above) derives from Book III of the Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio of Raymond of Pennaforte, a Dominican friar (pp. 437–502 in the edition of the Summa published at Rome in 1603; repr. Farnborough, 1967). Raymond’s work was written in the early thirteenth century (probably 1225 × 1227) – that is, in the wake of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which made annual confession obligatory and so instigated the production of large numbers of penitential and confessional manuals. For a comparison of the Parson’s Tale with other manuals of this sort, see L. W. Patterson, Traditio, 34 (1978), 331–80, at pp. 334–40 (cf. n. to Pars 956, and SA2 I, 534–6).

  Into this outer framework has been inserted the central section of the Parson’s Tale, concerning the Seven Deadly Sins and the seven remedial virtues. The ultimate source for the material on the Sins is the Summa de vitiis (c. 1236) by another Dominican friar, William Peraldus. However, two abridged versions of the Summa, both produced in England in the third quarter of the thirteenth century, offer closer parallels to some parts of the Parson’s Tale than the original. Both treatises are identified in modern scholarship by their first words, Quoniam and Primo. Quoniam rearranges the order of the Sins, and adds some extra material; Primo is a further abridgement of Quoniam. (See S
. Wenzel, Traditio, 30 (1974), 351–78, for a detailed comparison of the Parson’s Tale with these two treatises.) The sections of the Parson’s Tale on the seven remedial virtues do not derive, directly or indirectly, from William’s Summa, but have close parallels in a Latin treatise known as Postquam, which is preceded by the Summa in three of its nine manuscripts and by Primo in five others. (See the edition and translation of Postquam by S. Wenzel, Summa virtutum de remediis anime (Athens, GA, 1984), pp. 9, 12–30.) Illustrative samples of all these texts are given in SA2 I, 536–611.

  Wenzel favours the view that the combination, rearrangement, abridgement and occasional expansion of these various materials were carried out by Chaucer himself (see, e.g., ChauR, 16 (1982), 237–56, at p. 252). L. Patterson agrees with Wenzel on this (Traditio, 34 (1978), 340, n. 29), and argues (361–9) that four major instances of overlap with other passages of CT show that the Parson’s Tale was composed after the other tales had been written and drew material from them (the overlapping passages are Pars 463, 763/WB 1158; Pars 600/Pard 631–2; Pars 938–9/Mch 1441–51; Pars 1008/Sum 2098). It is not, however, easy to see why, out of the whole of CT, Chaucer should have chosen to echo these particular passages in his final tale. If, on the other hand, he was translating an existing compilation (either in Latin or in French), it is easy to imagine him later using material from it at appropriate moments in the tales. The position of the Parson’s Tale at the end of CT does not counteract this supposition. Chaucer could well have translated the work at an early date as an independent literary exercise (or an act of penance), have echoed some passages of it in writing the other tales (just as he echoed other works he had read or translated), and finally decided to use it as the conclusion to CT, perhaps to save himself time by using material already to hand. This view has been argued by A. E. Hartung, in Literature and Religion in the Later Middle Ages: Philological Studies in Honor of Siegfried Wenzel, ed. R. G. Newhauser and J. A. Alford (Binghamton, NY, 1995), pp. 61–80. Hartung too believes that Chaucer himself reworked the various sources of the Parson’s Tale, and interprets a number of (apparently) sourceless passages which adopt a strong tone towards sexual sin as indicative of the fault for which Chaucer was atoning. However, the discrepancy in outlook between these passages and the attitude towards sexuality in the rest of Chaucer’s works suggests strongly to me that they were already present in the treatise he was translating. The closeness with which he follows his sources in his other prose translations (Boece and Melibee) supports this idea, and the relatively recent discovery of a source for the Second Nun’s Tale, which accounts for sections previously thought to be original with Chaucer, may be taken as an indication that the Parson’s Tale likewise could have had a source which is lost to us or still awaiting discovery.

  For other parallels between the Parson’s Tale and the rest of CT, see Patterson, p. 359 n. 75, and the notes below.

  Rubric A quotation of Jeremiah 6:16 (the Vulgate Bible reads ‘semitis’, not ‘viis’). The Latin is translated in Pars 77–8. Wenzel (ChauR, 16 (1982), 251) cites a parallel linking of this text with the ‘way of penance’ in a fifteenth-century sermon-collection.

  75 that no man wole perisse: An echo of 2 Peter 3:9; God is said to be patient, ‘not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance’. The following clause echoes 1 Timothy 2:4.

  81–3 This outline applies to the outer framework of ParsT (the part borrowed from Raymond of Pennaforte; see Headnote). For the six topics mentioned, see Pars 84, 86, 95, 102, 107, and 1057. The explanation of why Penitence is so called is obscured in the translation: Raymond explains that the word derives from ‘poenae tentio’ (‘the holding of sorrow’), which is represented by the ME ‘that halt himself in sorwe’ (86).

  84 Ps. Ambrose, Sermo XXV.1 (PL 17, col. 677).

  85 Ps. Augustine, De vera et falsa poenitentia VIII.22 (PL 40, col. 1120).

  87–8 These two sentences are not in Raymond of Pennaforte. 89 Isidore, Sententiae II.xvi.1 (CCSL 111, p. 128).

  92 Cf. Gregory, Moralia in Job IV.xxvii.51–2 (CCSL 143, pp. 194–7).

  93 er that sinne forlete hem: That is, before old age deprives them of the power of sinning. The idea derives from a sermon attributed to St Augustine (Sermo CCCXCIII, PL 39, col. 1715), and became proverbial; see Phys 286 and n.

  95–100 three accions of penitence: See Augustine (attrib.), Sermo CCCLI.2–4 (PL 39, cols. 1537–43); the quotation in Pars 97 appears in col. 1537. The three types of penitence are (1) repentance of one’s former life on baptism; (2) repentance of deadly sin committed after baptism; (3) repentance of venial sin committed after baptism. In the Augustinian text, (2) and (3) appear in reverse order.

  101 Augustine, Epistolae CCLXV.8 (PL 33, col. 1089).

  109 From a sermon on penitence, formerly attributed to St John Chrysostom; see R. M. Correale, NQ, 225 (1980), 101–2, and SA2 I, 547, n. 3.

  112–27 The image of the tree is not in Raymond’s Summa. There is a close parallel to Pars 113–16 in an AN compilation of penitential material (Compileison de seinte penance; see SA2 I, 568–9); the Latin version of this section of the Compileison begins with a quotation from the same ps.-Chrysostom sermon that is the source of Pars 109 (see preceding n.), and which calls penitence ‘fructifera’. Wenzel (ChauR, 16 (1982), 241–3) suggests that this may be the ultimate source of the idea of penance as a ‘fruitbearing tree’.

  115 Matthew 3:8 (spoken not by Christ but by John the Baptist).

  116 Matthew 7:20.

  118 F. Beer (NQ, 233 (1988), 298–301) suggests that ‘grace’ should be emended to ‘egrece’, corresponding to the first of the two qualities attributed to the seed in Pars 117 (‘egre and hoot’; see Pars 120 for the second). As she recognizes, however, the word ‘egrece’ does not appear in the MED.

  119 Proverbs 16:6.

  125 Psalm 118:113 (AV 119:113).

  126 Daniel 4:7–15 (AV 10–18); cf. Mk 2155–8, NP 3128 and n.

  127 The reference is perhaps to Proverbs 28:13.

  130 Unidentified.

  131–2 Nicholas of Clairvaux, Sermo in festo sancti Andreae 8 (PL 184, cols. 1052–3); ps. Hugh of St Victor, Miscellanea VI.100 (PL 177, col. 857).

  133 Raymond of Pennaforte’s Summa likewise identifies six causes of contrition (see SA2 I, 548–51), but only two of them (fear of judgement and hell, hope of forgiveness and heaven) offer a general parallel to the causes listed in ParsT.

  134 Proverbs 12:4, Vulgate version (said of an unfaithful wife). The erroneous attribution to Job is in Raymond of Pennaforte’s Summa. Both El and Hg read ‘confessioun’ here, but the biblical source confirms that ‘confusioun’ is correct.

  135 Isaiah 38:15 (where the words are attributed to King Hezekiah).

  136 Revelation 2:5.

  138 The comparison with the dog returning to its vomit is biblical; see Proverbs 26:11 and 2 Peter 2:22.

  141 Ezekiel 20:43.

  142 John 8:34; spoken not by Peter but by Christ (but cf. 2 Peter 2:19).

  143 Not in Ezekiel; the reference may be to Job 30:28 or Psalm 42:2 (AV 43:2).

  144 Not traced in Seneca. The same attribution is found in Raymond of Pennaforte, whose Latin reads ‘Si scirem deos ignoscituros, homines autem ignoraturos tamen abhorrerem peccatum’ (SA2 I, 549:30–31). Newhauser’s notes (ibid.) cite an almost identical aphorism (with ‘condonaturos’ for ‘ignoscituros’) in a florilegium by Werner II of Kü ssenberg, abbot of Sankt Blasien, which is attributed only to ‘philosophus’ (Libri deflorationum sive excerptionum II.22, PL 157, col. 1205C). Werner, however, borrowed the aphorism along with the whole passage in which it occurs from the gospel commentary of Zachariah of Besançon (1145–50); see PL 186, col. 315D. The reference is perhaps to Cicero, On Duties III.ix.37: ‘even though we may escape the eyes of gods and men, we must still do nothing that savours of greed or of injustice, of lust or of intemperance’ (see also III.ix.38–9). This passage was incorporated into the Moralium dogma philosophorum (ed. J. Holmberg
(Uppsala, 1929), p. 71), a twelfth-century moral treatise composed of excerpts from classical authors, principally Seneca and Cicero (this may be the reason for the misattribution). The influence of the Moralium dogma on the source(s) of ParsT was demonstrated by R. Hazelton (Traditio, 16 (1960), 255–74), but he did not notice this parallel.

  145 Seneca, Moral Epistles LXV.21.

  150 Augustine, Sermo IX.16 (CCSL 41, pp. 138–41).

  156–7 Proverbs 11:22; cf. WB 784–5.

  159–60 The quotation is a conflation of two passages; see Jerome, Epistulae LXVI.10 (CSEL 54, p. 660) and ps. Jerome, Regula monachorum 30 (PL 30, col. 417).

  162 Romans 14:10.

  166 Ps. Bernard, Sermo ad praelatos in concilio 5 (PL 184, col. 1098).