The Knight may possibly hold the role of the “worthiest” man on the pilgrimage he is by no means the holiest. The Parson is not the first man of the cloth to feature in this prologue but he is the only virtuous one. Like the Knight, he too is an honest and admiral fellow. He is accompanied on this pilgrimage by his brother, the Plowman, and both of these men base their lives entirely on the principles of their faith.
The Parson represents all that the other clerics in the prologue are not. He is fulfilled through his duty to his flock and not interested in monetary gain. His parishioners mean so much to him that he hates the idea of excommunicating anyone especially on the basis of money “ful looth were him to cursen for his tithes.”
While other ecclesiasts try to procure money from their parishioners, the Parson would be more likely to be found “unto his povre parisshens aboute/ of his offering and eek his substance.” He not only practises what he preaches but also believes in what he says “that if golde ruste, what shall iren do?”, setting a righteous example for others to follow.
In monetary terms, the Parson may be poor, but as a result of his unselfish love he is rich in spiritual virtue. The Parson resolutely evades the seductions of easy money offered when singing for departed souls, or accepting retainers from rich guilds or fraternities. Instead he practices Christ’s teachings and ensures the safety and well being of his flock. His devotion to a virtuous life does not preclude a strong will allowing him to “snibben sharply for the nonis” anyone “obsinat/ What so he were, of heigh or logh esate.”
This character lies at the moral heart of the prologue and subsequently the group of pilgrims, even rendering the Knight pale in comparison. He is virtue personified and it is his wholly religious way of life that highlights the depravity of others on the journey.
Just as the Knight is the perfect model for chivalry, and the Parson for the clergy, the Plowman is the ideal model for Christian behaviour. He is a labourer who is not afraid of hard work, “a trewe swinkere and a good was he.” He is a man who would be found “Lyvynge in pees and parfit charitee”, and loving God “best with al his hoole herte.” He chooses to life his life to the teachings of the Bible and “At alle tymes, thogh him gamed or smerte,/ And thanne his neighebor right as hym.” When Chaucer uses the adjective “alle” we are assured that he literally means each and every day denoting the Plowman’s dedication to a holy life.
The Plowman’s purity is such that he would work for the penniless with no pecuniary compensation demanded. It is through these acts of generosity that his poverty is such that he pays tax, not with money, but with labour and cattle.
As with the Knight, the Plowman is unconcerned with his physical appearance. If wealth is denoted by beast of burden then the “mere” he rides certainly symbolises his destitution and yet allows us to realise that he too prioritises the religious nature of the pilgrimage rather than using it as an excuse to flaunt himself to gain friends and impress women.
The Knight, the Parson and the Plowman are truly pious men with noble ideals and while they are wholly different from each other, they are banded together through their virtuous natures; they love God and their neighbours, work hard for others and are humble. In reality such men are as rare as saints but their ideals are readily accepted.
All three characters serve as the measuring stick for other pilgrims who more often than not fall short of these flawless standards. There are, however, some characters so low and repugnant that they represent the dichotomy of these faultless men. Three such characters include the Friar, the Pardonner and the Summoner, who are bound together by their immorality and abhorrent lifestyles.
The Pardonner and the Summoner are the last two portraits in the prologue and perhaps two of the most interesting. They appear to be not only partners in work but also in a homosexual relationship. The bond is strong and they are open about their affections; on the journey they sing a love song together, and rather loudly too! “Ful loude he soong ‘come hider, love to me!/ this the Summoner bar to him a stif burdoun.”
They are both quite similar in their visage, both being relatively ugly, and yet at the same time they have something about them of the fascination of the incongruous in children’s fairy tales.
A Summoner was a person appointed to bring the ecclesiastical courts to those who transgressed against the laws of the church. The position offered many chances for corruption and abuse of power, and we see that this Summoner readily indulges in doing so.
In Chaucer’s era the face told many tales and was reflective of inner character. We see almost immediately that the Summoner’s face epitomises his inner torment and struggle with morality. The reference to his “fyr reed cherrubinnes face” reminds us hell’s fire and therefore symbolises his lecherous nature. The ironic juxtaposition of “fyr reed” and “cherrunbinnes” highlights the darker side of his personality.
The description of the Pardonner is equally as repelling. His hair is “as yelow as wex,,/But smothe it heeng as dooth a strike of flex” hanging in greasy rats’ tails, his eyes narrow and these, coupled with an unbroken voice and boyish complexion, appear inappropriate for a grown man and force the Pardonner to cover his inadequacies by pretending to be a stylish, homosexual, young man.
Both men work for the church, and both exploit people to the full. The Summoner is prepared, if adequately bribed, to condone most offences, as he believes money is more important than the excommunication that the courts can give, “purs is the ercedekenes helle.” For only a quart of wine he will permit the priests to have a mistress, in fact he will allow almost anything; for the right price! We can overlook nearly all of this as most sins no longer punishable in today’s society, but perhaps the most chilling and disturbing aspect to his character is that he has the “girles” in his diocese at his mercy. After hearing of his lecherous nature we wonder just what this man does with these young people.
The Pardonner, like the Summoner, earns his living through deceiving people. Pardonners were sellers of Papal indulgences, whereby a sinner could buy penance; but this Pardonner earns extra money to that which he gains selling penances; he sells “relikes.” A “pilwe-beer” which he claims is the veil of the Virgin Mary, “pigges bones” masquerading as those of a saint, fragments of the sail and a cheap cross and with these and “feyened flaterie and japes,/ He made the person and the people his apes.” Perhaps, howver, the ultimate irony is that this loathsome creature is extremely convincing in church “But trewely to tellen at laste,/ he was in chirche a noble ecclesiate.”
In writing the portrait of the Summoner, Chaucer appears to be flattering the man when he is in fact his scathing satire is reaching new intensities. When describing the Pardonner, on the other hand, Chaucer is openly hostile. One source claims that this si so that we can empathise with his “spiritual sterility”, but in my opinion Chaucer merely created a character to be totally loathed and detested.
The Friar is third ecclesiast in the prologue and the last of the trio of deviants who set their desires against the ordained patterns of behaviour. Of all of them, the Friar is by far the worst. This Friar, like others, has moved form being an itinerant teacher and defender of the faith, to being an exploiter of the poor and a parasite on the community.
Perhaps Chaucer was trying to warn us when he opened the portrait by describing the Friar as “ a wantowne and a merie,/ A limatour, a ful solempne man.” These adjectives seem to have been randomly thrown together by Chaucer and in fact this sort of moral chaos is perfectly fitting for the Friar.
“He hadde maad ful many a marriage/ Of yonge wommen at his owene cost.” This altruistic gesture seems more in keeping with the duties of a devoted Friar, but I discovering his lecherous nature the gesture begs the question why? The Friar is not selfless and we wonder what was in it for him? It becomes apparent that these marriages are merely a despicable front, a way of offloading his own sexual mistakes and a means of allowing him to negate responsibility for his actions.
“Unto his ordre he was a noble post,” This is heavily ironic as we find it hard to conceive that this man is the pillar of any community. Chaucer’s use of adverbs such as “sweetly” and “plesaunt” only serve to highlight the sarcastic and ironic tone of this portrait.
The Friar abuses his power of confession “He was an esy man to yeve penaunce, /Ther as he wiste to have a good pitaunce“ which is a great contrast to the Parson who would “snibben sharply for the nonis” any man who transgressed, regardless of his social position.
We recognise the Friar’s social priorities when Chaucer tells us:
“He knew the tavernes wel in every toun
And everich hostiler and tappestere
Bet than a lazar or a beggestere;”
What would a Friar need this knowledge for and why is not referring to churches? This is not the extent of his depravity, however, for he exploited the poor widows using his ability to produce an illusion of sweetness and integrity which guaranteed that “yet wolde he have a ferthing, ere he went.”
Unlike any other of the clergy, there is a fundamental evil at he core of the Friar, which is made worse by his ability to disguise it. Perhaps the most incriminating indictment of the Friar’s practices and even of the Friar himself can be found in these lines:
“It is nat honeste, it may nat avaunce,
For to deelen with no swich poraille,
But al with riche and selleres of vitaille.
And over al, ther as profit sholde arise,
Curteis he was, and lowely of servyse.
Ther nas no man nowher so virtuous”
This extract demonstrates well Chaucer’s irony. He shows us that the Friar despises the poor, they are simply rabble to him despite the fact that it is to these very people he should devote himself. This hubristic side of the Friar is well hidden however, especially if there is a chance to make money.
In this telling portrait Chaucer appears artless, never sure of the connotations of his words. The naïve manner of the narrator, however, only highlights the repugnant nature of the Friar and ignites a sense of disgust in the reader.
Through these six characters Chaucer presents the twin dichotomies of the noblest ideals and basest practices; they are the embodiment of good and evil. In fact their personalities are so extreme that they are closer to the abstract personification of their own ideals, as found in morality plays, that they are real people and thus despite their truly cunning creation they lose a sense of humanity.
Girles meaning both young men and women