Identity In Chaucer's The Summoner

Is He or Isn’t He?: Queer Theory and Sexual Identity in Chaucer’s The Summoner’s Tale

Sauntering through The Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer’s Summoner, a blatantly immoral and perverted pilgrim, is a complex character who invokes the reader’s ire and astonishment in equal measure. The avaricious Summoner is described by Pilgrim Chaucer in less than flattering terms, accentuating the criminal activity he commits in the Church’s name, such as blackmail, bribery, and theft. Despite the mention of the Summoner’s immoral sexual relations with married women, there remains an air of mystery surrounding his sexuality. From his ambiguous association with a man who appears to be gay, to his preoccupation with all things anal, the enigma of his sexuality

is never satisfactorily exposed. In both the General Prologue and The Summoner’s Tale, Geoffrey Chaucer covertly questions heterosexist cultural norms by hinting at the homosexual potential lurking in the Summoner, thereby inviting us to examine our own proclivities.
LGBTQ Literary Criticism addresses a multitude of questions surrounding social tolerance and gender performance, and challenges the heteronormative power construct. For the scope of this paper, I will narrow the inquiry to focus on Queer theory specifically. Lois Tyson, in Critical Theory Today, explains that
Daniels 2
Queer criticism explores the “slippery, indefinite, and complicated quality of human sexuality,” and places the sexuality of the work in the spotlight of our examination of the story (323).

Indeed, Poet Chaucer has exposed the Summoner as a man who cannot be defined simply in terms of “gay” or “straight,” but acts in a manner that is uniquely his own from the moment he is introduced.

In the General Prologue, the first mention of the Summoner is of his “saucefleem” face, marked by pustules and swollen with infection (625-7). Not even “quyk-silver… ne brymstoon,” or mercury and sulphur, could cure the painful mess (629). Leprosy is the probable culprit, but his appearance could also be from a late-stage syphilitic infection, a common sexually transmitted disease. Chaucer’s Tales are fully representative of the unbridled promiscuity of the day, and considering the lack of reliable barrier protection and any adequate form of antibiotic, the latter diagnosis is fully possible. Were the Summoner indeed afflicted with the French Gout, it would shout loudly his masculinity, albeit also his penchant for unclean prostitutes. Yet it is his masculinity that becomes questionable with the introduction of his traveling

companion.
The Summoner and his compatriot the Pardoner sing loudly a sonnet together, “Com hider, love, to me,” their voices intertwining and complementing one another in perfection (672). The beauty of the song speaks volumes to the familiarity of the two men, who obviously spent a great deal of time together to perfect their melody, not to mention the subject matter seems fitting more for a lover than simple friend. The Pardoner had flaxen hair and a silky-smooth complexion, so perfect indeed, that Pilgrim Chaucer was convinced he was
Daniels 3
“geldying or a mare” (676-91). The claim that he is either a eunuch or homosexual implies that the Summoner was also aware of his companion’s physical or sexual nature, and calls to question his own preferences in that they shared the aforementioned love song. Poet Chaucer gives no definitive definition of either man, a fact that John M. Bowers addresses in his essay, Canterbury Tales – Politically Corrected. Discussing the fact that texts of the era “both mirror and generate social realities”, he iterates specifically Chaucer’s “partial self- censorship”(14). This self-censorship reasonably explains why Chaucer never specifically addresses the sexuality of either man, yet hints at the duality of their natures. Of course, the preoccupation the Summoner has with anuses nearly causes one to request an immediate retraction from Mr. Bowers concerning censorship of any kind where Chaucer is concerned.
By the time the Summoner is ready to tell his tale, the rivalry between himself and the Friar has gotten so out of hand that the Summoner is quaking with indignation and anger, showing finally the rage that is inside him. In retaliation to his rival’s outrageous story, his own tale begins with a Friar who is spirited away to Hell, and sees none of his fellow clergy about, so naturally asks after them. As it turns out, they have a place of honor in hell. As Satan lifts his tail, 20,000 Friars fly out of his “ers,” buzz about like bees, and finally retreat in militaristic fashion back into their nefarious lair (1689-98). Even if meant to merely incite the Friar to apoplexy, the insertion of whole males, not just male sexual organs, into the anal cavity of Satan has a definite “camp” feel, explained by Tyson as a subversive way to “mock authority and traditional standards… by imitating them in outrageous ways”
Daniels 4
(316). Chaucer throws up a middle finger at the “compulsory heterosexuality” of the day in this scene, and also calling attention to the underlying hate between the Friar and the Summoner. The reader is left to wonder if the underlying sexual tension between them is truly there, or merely a subconscious homoerotic suggestion. No matter how the Friar and the Summoner feel toward one another, Chaucer is not done hammering home his anal imagery, and delves deeper into the subject with gusto.
After being comfortably ensconced at Thomas’ home, a sick and frequently visited man of some means, the greedy Friar sermonizes on the sins of gluttony and anger ad nauseam until the poor convalescent is overcome by righteous anger himself. Telling the Friar that he has a wonderful treat for him, he implores the man to slide his hand down his backside, beneath his buttocks, “and grope wel bihynde” (2140-1). Rather than be disgusted at the idea, our rapacious Friar gleefully thrusts his hand into the “clifte” between Thomas’ buttocks, searching deeply and well for the promised treasure, which turns out to be merely a fart, even though it was a splendid specimen (2145). Again, Chaucer puts this bit of anatomy front and center, and the audience can in no way misinterpret the visual, despite all efforts to do so. Whether being campy, irreverent, homoerotic, or merely crude, Chaucer simply does what he is known best for, which is flipping the status quo on its head, and allowing his readers to draw their own conclusions.
Geoffrey Chaucer skillfully creates characters of depth, and his Tales leave the reader pondering the fates of each one. Is the Pardoner a hermaphrodite, homosexual, or simply effeminate? Is the Summoner dying of syphilis, spurning his
Daniels 5
uncontrolled anger, or does he see in his mortal enemy, the Friar, a love interest? If one removes the anal play from the picture, does the work still challenge sexual
normativity? Regardless of the conclusions one may draw, an indisputable fact remains. By creating a satirical representation of the heterosexual norms, Chaucer could play with the idea of sexual fluidity without fear of reprisal, and in this way, support homoeroticism.