Morality in Clergymen: A Study of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales

The General Prologue of Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales (1387-1400) introduces characters from many facets of Medieval English society. Among these characters, Chaucer presents a range of morality. The Summoner, the Friar, and the Parson are all clergymen, but they are not all as upright as they should be. Furthermore, while the Parson fits into this description of a good clergyman, the Friar and the Summoner fall short. Through the use of irony and the occasional direct judgment, Chaucer makes it known that to care too much about money and not enough about the spiritual well-being parishioners is the downfall of a clergyman, and that an ethical clergyman is one who does not stray from the rules of his religion. One of the more negative pictures

The description of the Summoner – in contrast to that of the Friar – opens with a physical description. This description is not at all flattering, either: “That hadde a fir-reed cherubinnes face, / For saucefleem he was, with yen narwe. / As hoot he was and lecherous as a sparwe. / With scalled browes blake and piled berd. / Of his visage children were aferd.” (Chaucer 626-635). The initial description of The Summoner having a cherub-like face may seem positive, but as the description goes on, it becomes less and less complimentary. The mentioning of cherubs is highly ironic, as Chaucer goes on to note that the Summoner is covered and boils and pimples with scarred eyebrows; in fact, he is so horrific that children are terrified of him. This description leaves no room for being angelic or innocent, and this becomes even more apparent as Chaucer moves on to the deeds of the Summoner. As a server of summons to the ecclesiastical court so people can answer for their spiritual and moral crimes, he would need to be morally upright himself. Even still, Chaucer has no reservations about showing how corrupt he is. For example, the Summoner lets someone keep their lover in exchange for wine, “A bettre felawe sholde men noght finde: / He wolde suffre for a quart of win, / A good felawe to have his concubin” (Chaucer 650-653). Like with the Friar, Chaucer uses irony to point out

He uses the Parson to show what a clergyman should be like, in contrast to figures like the Friar and the Summoner. The contrast is especially effective considering that the Parson’s description occurs soon before the Summoner’s; while the Summoner is one of the most abhorrent figures described, the Parson is one of the most admirable. The first lines of the Parson’s description are entirely unironic: “A good man was ther of religioun / And was a poore Person of a town, / But riche he was of holy thought and werk” (Chaucer 479-481). The first thing said about the Parson is that he is “a good man”; the second thing said is that he is poor, but rich in the knowledge of God. This is especially relevant when considering the problems with the Friar and the Summoner; while the Friar is unwilling to associate with poor people and the Summoner values the idea of wealth more than his duty as well, the Parson is poor himself. In fact, it may be because of his poorness that he is rich in the knowledge of God; it can be inferred that it is because of the corrupting power of money that the Summoner and the Friar do not fulfill their religious duties. Moreover, Chaucer notes that the Parson cares a lot about the poor: “Ful loth were him to cursen for his tithes” (Chaucer 488). The Parson his so unlike the Friar and the Summoner that he loathes to threaten excommunication to collect money;