Folks, I have a “shy” friend who raised some interesting points. I admit I’m stymied, so I’m going to hope some of you have some insights! Here is my friend’s comment. Would love to know what you think!
***
But your brief account of the Parson in today’s entry struck a wrong note for me. You write this:
The Parson is another character who complicates everything in the General Prologue. First, we wonder why he is presented here rather than earlier with the rest of the clergy. There are a few possible reasons for this. First, a parson wasn’t necessarily connected to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. He could have been a non-Catholic parson in the pre-Reformation era. He might also not simply have been ordained in the church but hired by a priest to do the priest’s duties for him. Or he might have been independent or outside the Church’s parishes for some other reason. Whatever the case, he is not among the formally recognized members of the Church hierarchy reflected in the previous group of pilgrims included in the clerical estate.
The first thing that jarred me was the sentence “He could have been a non-Catholic parson in the pre-Reformation era.” If you’d written “could not have been,” I’d have understood. Before the Reformation, all of western Christendom was Catholic, to be outside that communion was to be a heretic, and the Parson could hardly have openly pastored a congregation or been welcome among the pilgrims to Canterbury if he had been a heretic. I really don’t know what you could mean here.
In the narrator’s description of the Parson, he has a parish, collects tithes, can excommunicate for non-payment of those tithes (but mercifully does not), and the verses repeatedly refer to “priests” in his context. He is clearly a priest of the Catholic church. The OED’s definition of “parson” has this first of all: “In the pre-Reformation Church and the Church of England: a person presented to an ecclesiastical living by a patron and admitted and instituted to it by the bishop; a rector. Now historical.” Chaucer’s narrator refers to the Parson’s “benefice,” which is his ecclesiastical living, probably in the gift of some lord or other.
I think you are on to something in observing that he is not mentioned among the higher social orders, as are the Prioress, Monk, and Friar, and even the Clerk. I think the reason is that, in language the Catholic church uses to this day, they are “religious” and he is “secular.” That is, the others belong to monastic religious orders, while the Parson is what we would now call a diocesan parish priest ordained by a local ordinary, a bishop. In the middle ages, aside from the still-new universities, the religious houses were the centers of education, where one would find learned clerics, while secular priests serving common people’s local parishes were typically less educated. This particular parson, the narrator informs us, was “also a learned man, a scholar,” but that is fairly exceptional for a secular priest of that time. Local priests were notorious for butchering the liturgical Latin, which they knew just enough of to say Mass and perform the sacraments. (They were also sometimes guilty of “concubinage,” taking a wife more or less surreptitiously, which locals who knew might tolerate, since the expectation of celibacy took hold haltingly and at a different pace in different countries. In Sigrid Undset’s Kristin Lavransdatter, there are still married priests in fourteenth-century Norway.)
I don't know if this helps answer your friend's question, posted on the Substack page, but the parson might, indeed, be a heretic from the point of view of Chaucer's time. There's some scholarship connecting his characterization to John Wycliffe, who was certainly regarded as a heretic, and martyred for it. I would wonder how Chaucer regards the supposed heresy itself. The parson's characterization in the prologue is wholly admirable, instructive to this day. His tale is, to put it generously, a bit of a snoozer.
P.S. Chaucer himself might have been sympathetic or more to Wycliffe. There's research on that too.
Little late to the question but there was a connection. Chaucer's patron, and later brother in-law, was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, third son of Edward III. John of Gaunt is also known as the protector of John Wycliffe.
Oh, I seem to recall that now! Yes, this makes complete sense. It’s so amazing how much of Chaucer’s real life and society is reflected in the work. It’s fanciful and realistic at the same time.
I'm getting a little lost in this thread (I mean in terms of what reply goes where), but I wanted to share that I did some re-reading and re-discovered that it is in the Epilogue to The Man of Law's Tale that the Host refers (mockingly) to the Parson as a Lollard. So that gives us the hint.
To return to this briefly, I was reviewing some things in Chaucer earlier this morning and rediscovered that the parson is called a Lollard. Lollards were followers of John Wycliffe, so my recall originally understated the point: It's not just esoteric scholarship but the straightforward text that associates the parson with Wycliffe.
As for his upstanding character "complicating" the ordering of the characters in descending morals, I thought of the way God does that in the Bible, with younger sons getting the inheritance, women doing heroic deeds, Melchizedek appearing out of nowhere and receiving tithes, and the Messiah showing up as a suffering servant and not a conquering king (though He really was, for those who had ears to hear).
We think we have it all figured out then the last are first and the first are last. I don't know if that was Chaucer's intention, but those things came to mind!
I was fascinated by the DOCTOR OF MEDICINE, and his seeming attention to infectious disease in bodily fluids (line 421). And by the humor I’m picking up in my slow read and re-read of this text. Chaucer was snarky!
I was fascinated by the wife of Bath's command of scripture, at least those sections that pertained to her particular "profession." She either studied it carefully, or her ears perked up when her favorite topic came up in Mass.
Thank you Karen for your great insightful descriptions of pilgrim estates! I'm so absorbed into the stories. I was also amazed by Chaucer's contribution to the Middle English, opening a great flourishing era of English literature! You offer us the bites into that. So, thank you, Karen! ❤️
This week’s came out a little later than usual because I checked 12:01 pm instead of am. 🤪
Folks, I have a “shy” friend who raised some interesting points. I admit I’m stymied, so I’m going to hope some of you have some insights! Here is my friend’s comment. Would love to know what you think!
***
But your brief account of the Parson in today’s entry struck a wrong note for me. You write this:
The Parson is another character who complicates everything in the General Prologue. First, we wonder why he is presented here rather than earlier with the rest of the clergy. There are a few possible reasons for this. First, a parson wasn’t necessarily connected to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. He could have been a non-Catholic parson in the pre-Reformation era. He might also not simply have been ordained in the church but hired by a priest to do the priest’s duties for him. Or he might have been independent or outside the Church’s parishes for some other reason. Whatever the case, he is not among the formally recognized members of the Church hierarchy reflected in the previous group of pilgrims included in the clerical estate.
The first thing that jarred me was the sentence “He could have been a non-Catholic parson in the pre-Reformation era.” If you’d written “could not have been,” I’d have understood. Before the Reformation, all of western Christendom was Catholic, to be outside that communion was to be a heretic, and the Parson could hardly have openly pastored a congregation or been welcome among the pilgrims to Canterbury if he had been a heretic. I really don’t know what you could mean here.
In the narrator’s description of the Parson, he has a parish, collects tithes, can excommunicate for non-payment of those tithes (but mercifully does not), and the verses repeatedly refer to “priests” in his context. He is clearly a priest of the Catholic church. The OED’s definition of “parson” has this first of all: “In the pre-Reformation Church and the Church of England: a person presented to an ecclesiastical living by a patron and admitted and instituted to it by the bishop; a rector. Now historical.” Chaucer’s narrator refers to the Parson’s “benefice,” which is his ecclesiastical living, probably in the gift of some lord or other.
I think you are on to something in observing that he is not mentioned among the higher social orders, as are the Prioress, Monk, and Friar, and even the Clerk. I think the reason is that, in language the Catholic church uses to this day, they are “religious” and he is “secular.” That is, the others belong to monastic religious orders, while the Parson is what we would now call a diocesan parish priest ordained by a local ordinary, a bishop. In the middle ages, aside from the still-new universities, the religious houses were the centers of education, where one would find learned clerics, while secular priests serving common people’s local parishes were typically less educated. This particular parson, the narrator informs us, was “also a learned man, a scholar,” but that is fairly exceptional for a secular priest of that time. Local priests were notorious for butchering the liturgical Latin, which they knew just enough of to say Mass and perform the sacraments. (They were also sometimes guilty of “concubinage,” taking a wife more or less surreptitiously, which locals who knew might tolerate, since the expectation of celibacy took hold haltingly and at a different pace in different countries. In Sigrid Undset’s Kristin Lavransdatter, there are still married priests in fourteenth-century Norway.)
Another friend replies:
I don't know if this helps answer your friend's question, posted on the Substack page, but the parson might, indeed, be a heretic from the point of view of Chaucer's time. There's some scholarship connecting his characterization to John Wycliffe, who was certainly regarded as a heretic, and martyred for it. I would wonder how Chaucer regards the supposed heresy itself. The parson's characterization in the prologue is wholly admirable, instructive to this day. His tale is, to put it generously, a bit of a snoozer.
P.S. Chaucer himself might have been sympathetic or more to Wycliffe. There's research on that too.
Little late to the question but there was a connection. Chaucer's patron, and later brother in-law, was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, third son of Edward III. John of Gaunt is also known as the protector of John Wycliffe.
Oh, I seem to recall that now! Yes, this makes complete sense. It’s so amazing how much of Chaucer’s real life and society is reflected in the work. It’s fanciful and realistic at the same time.
I'm getting a little lost in this thread (I mean in terms of what reply goes where), but I wanted to share that I did some re-reading and re-discovered that it is in the Epilogue to The Man of Law's Tale that the Host refers (mockingly) to the Parson as a Lollard. So that gives us the hint.
To return to this briefly, I was reviewing some things in Chaucer earlier this morning and rediscovered that the parson is called a Lollard. Lollards were followers of John Wycliffe, so my recall originally understated the point: It's not just esoteric scholarship but the straightforward text that associates the parson with Wycliffe.
As for his upstanding character "complicating" the ordering of the characters in descending morals, I thought of the way God does that in the Bible, with younger sons getting the inheritance, women doing heroic deeds, Melchizedek appearing out of nowhere and receiving tithes, and the Messiah showing up as a suffering servant and not a conquering king (though He really was, for those who had ears to hear).
We think we have it all figured out then the last are first and the first are last. I don't know if that was Chaucer's intention, but those things came to mind!
That’s an insightful connection, Carmon. Thank you.
Again, the comment about the Enneagram is worth the price of admission.
I just love seeing ourselves in the literature of other times and places!
I was fascinated by the DOCTOR OF MEDICINE, and his seeming attention to infectious disease in bodily fluids (line 421). And by the humor I’m picking up in my slow read and re-read of this text. Chaucer was snarky!
So snarky! So fun! So PG-13! 😂
PS: slow reading is the best kind!
I was fascinated by the wife of Bath's command of scripture, at least those sections that pertained to her particular "profession." She either studied it carefully, or her ears perked up when her favorite topic came up in Mass.
Yes! This aspect of her life and this period are crucial! I talk about this in tomorrow’s post! Stay tuned.
Thank you Karen for your great insightful descriptions of pilgrim estates! I'm so absorbed into the stories. I was also amazed by Chaucer's contribution to the Middle English, opening a great flourishing era of English literature! You offer us the bites into that. So, thank you, Karen! ❤️
Chaucer is simply amazing!
You present this so delightfully!
Thank you! 😊