Professor Wallace
ENGL 25
Assignment 5
1 May 2012
Born This Way: Sin in the Friar’s Tale
He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.(New International Version 1984, John 12:6)
The Friar’s Tale of The Canterbury Tales, written in the fourteenth century by Geoffrey Chaucer, is a cautionary tale of a Summoner who abuses his power to blackmail an elderly woman (meeting a yeoman along the way) and is subsequently banished to Hell. The Friar, who tells the tale, calls Summoner a “theef” no less than three times, raising questions of whether the Friar is to be taken seriously or ironically. Throughout the story, Chaucer references the Bible, Virgil, and Dante, adding elements of sophistication and credibility to the didactic tale. In particular, Judas Iscariot of the New Testament is prefigured as the original “thief” whose example the Summoner follows. Judas’ story and the Friar’s Tale share important differences, however—while the Friar acts of his own accord, Judas was foreknown and in some sense predestined to betray Christ. The story of Judas and the Friar’s Tale employ dramatic irony. As a legal bureaucrat, the Summoner’s damnation is ironic: he condemns others for their sins while taking bribes from them. As one of the twelve disciples and part of Jesus’ inner circle, Judas feigns caring about the poor but ultimately acts out of self-interest and greed, which serves as justification for his betrayal. While both stories are ironic in nature, Judas’ demise may well be described as tragic; the Summoner—apparent through his words and actions—is slightly less deserving of sympathy.
The Friar is fairly insistent in describing the Summoner as a “thief”—so much so that readers are tempted to see the word’s use as ironic. Even from the Friar’s Prologue, the Friar’s bias is apparent. In his first mention of the Summoner, the Friar says, “That of a somonour may no good be sayd” (The Friar’s Prologue, line 1281). The narrator of the Friar’s Tale is specifically referring to the Summoner, but he may as well be referring to summoners in general. The phrase “may no good be sayd” has an imperative tone, suggesting “no good” should be said of summoners past, present, and future. The Friar continues belittling the occupation: “A somonour is a rennere up and doun / with mandementz for fornicacioun, / and is ybet at every townes end” (1283-5). “Mandementz,” meaning commandments, were the summons or warning notices from the courts. Summoners were to go from town to town citing individuals and families for crimes: in effect, they were court officials. It is interesting that the Friar says a Summoner is “beat at every town’s end,” fo even while explaining what a summoner is to the Wife of Bath, the Friar cannot help but diminish the Summoner’s role.
The Friar’s berating of the Summoner becomes more allegorical than literal in the beginning of the tale itself. In lines 1339 to 1354, the Friar progresses from saying “no good” may be said about the Summoner to calling the said Summoner a “theef” several times in succession. Likewise, in the New Testament, Judas is described as a thief in John 12:6. Regarding Judas, Chaucer writes, “And right as Judas hadde purses smale, / And was a theef, right swich a theef was he” (1350-1). These lines might be translated as, “Just as Judas was entrusted with a small purse and was a thief, such a thief was he.” Judas’ name, etymologically speaking, connotes self-interest and greed (Braswell, 304). A modern-day scholar on Chaucer, Mary Braswell, writes of depictions of Judas in the Middle Ages: “In the visual arts, Judas became [such] an allegory of greed that he ultimately ‘lost his identity’ and became an allegory of Avaritia” (Braswell, 304). “Avaritia” is Latin for greed or avarice, but in this context it refers to one of the Seven Deadly Sins, so named because they carry the risk of eternal damnation. By referencing Judas (in particular his “avaritia”), Chaucer foreshadows the Summoner’s eventual demise. The Friar, by comparing the Summoner to Judas, adds a layer of allegory to the tale that serves to degrade the Summoner’s position further.
While both the Friar’s Tale and the Biblical account of Judas make use of irony, it is perhaps Judas who comes to the more tragic end. The Oxford English Dictionary defines dramatic irony as “a literary technique … by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.” Tragic irony, a type of dramatic irony, adds a tragic element to the “full significance” of a character’s words or actions. The story of Judas is tragically ironic. “‘Woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man!'", says Christ in the Book of Matthew. "'It would be better for him if he had not been born.’ Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, ‘Surely you don’t mean me, Rabbi?’ Jesus answered, ‘You have said so’ (Matthew 26:24-25, NIV). Perhaps Judas is lying to Jesus (or, at least, being disingenuous in asking his question), but, depending on one’s point of view, Jesus already knows his heart. In addition, Jesus’ words foreshadow the events of Matthew 27 in which Judas commits suicide. It is presumably in Jesus’ plan that Judas be the one to betray him—if it were not the case, then Jesus could not die on the Cross. A reasonable interpretation would be that Judas was born to betray Christ—he was God’s (or Satan’s) instrument. The fiend in The Friar’s Tale echoes this sentiment: “For somtyme we been Goddes instrumentz / And meenes to doon his comandementz” (1483-4). Sometimes, the demon says, we are God’s instruments and are to follow his commands. The Summoner can do little else in the tale. Although he is corrupt and deserves some kind of punishment, the Summoner is scarcely given time to repent—he is sent directly to Hell immediately. His story is ironic in that the Friar (and the readers) are aware of his sin, but he is not.
The Summoner’s interaction with the widow is ironic as well—as we will see if we attend to the historical Judas, whose story frames the Summoner of The Friar’s Tale in a Biblical context. Judas in the New Testament objects to Mary’s pouring fragrance onto Jesus’ feet: “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages” (John 12:5). Judas’ words are somewhat ironic because the motivation behind them is self-interested greed rather than any desire to help the poor. This scene poses the question of the means justifying the ends and vice-versa: Judas is merely concerned about the ends to which the money will go. In contrast, much of Catholic theology emphasizes the importance of believers’ faith and inward intentions. Similarly, the narrator of the Friar’s Tale writes, “’Nay,’ quod the devel, ‘God woot, never a deal! / It is nat his entente, trust me weel’” (1555-6). A modern English translation of these lines might read, “”No,” said the devil, “God knows—it is not even a bit. It is not his intent, trust me.” Mary, in the New Testament, pours perfume on Jesus’ feet out of faith and devotion to Jesus—her intentions, originating from a trust of Jesus’ divinity, are pure.
Intent (repeated seven times in the tale) is an important element of the Friar’s Tale, employed to somewhat humorous and ironic ends. The Summoner mocks the yeoman for not taking three horses down to Hell after their owner, a cart-driver, curses them. However, the demon responds that it was not the peasant’s fault (1556). Curses, according to the demon, must have malevolent intention behind them to be effective. While ironic, the devil’s explanation is almost absurd: the idea that trivial frustrations such as cursing one’s horses have metaphysical and spiritual consequences (i.e. send them to Hell—which altogether seems ridiculous). Chaucer writes, “The carl spak oo thing, but thoghte another” (1568). In this scene, the layers of irony weave themselves into the liminality of the cart-driver’s experience. Morton Bloomfield writes, “The limen here is for those who choose the wrong gate ... the Summoner, like all humans, must cross the threshold of either hell, heaven, or purgatory” (288-9). In this instance, the cart-driver’s intentions operate on the limen; his intent determine his horses' fate. Scholars have suggested that the Friar’s Tale is at once an ironic tale and a liminal one (Lenaghan, 281; Bloomfield, 286). In particular, the tale’s Biblical references to Jesus, Judas and demons of the spiritual world are liminal and ironic. Irony and liminality are inextricably related in Chaucer's characterization of the Summoner; as a result of his transgressions, the Summoner undergoes a liminal journey from Earth to Hell. Through its use of Biblical allusions, the Friar’s Tale’s ironic liminality may prompt readers to not take the Friar seriously.
The primary cause of the Summoner’s damnation is a failure to recognize his own sin. Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas’s and the Italian poet Dante’s influences on the Friar’s Tale are notable in the Summoner’s journey: the Summoner, in some sense, sends himself to Hell through his crimes against the widow and various other common people. As a reading of Dante’s Inferno, the Friar’s Tale emphasizes contrappasso, the concept that structures damnation in the Inferno. Put simply, contrappasso means “the sin is its own punishment ... the torments of the damned are therefore strictly self-inflicted” (Neuse, 201-2). In addition, it is possible readers might have thought of Aquinas, as one of the most influential theologians of the Middle Ages and a Dominican friar himself, when considering the character of the Friar. In Summa Theologica, Aquinas writes, “On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death” (II-ii). Dante and Aquinas on some level are exceedingly harsh on the mis-believer: heretics deserve death and damnation. The end of the Friar’s Tale echoes their sentiments: “Body and soule he with the devel wente / where as that somonours han hir heritage” (1640-1). It is important to note that the narrator uses the words “body and soule,” indicating a physical and spiritual death. In addition, a humorous authorial intrusion is apparent: Chaucer suggests that Summoners “had hir heritage” (have their heritage or rightful place) in Hell. Such a concept is Dantean in nature—in the Inferno, Dante problematizes the Catholic church by imagining its officials in Hell. While Chaucer was certainly a Catholic, he did not shy away from criticism of the Church in many of the Canterbury Tales, including the Friar’s Tale.
The Summoner’s power depends upon his “peyne of cursying” (1587). “Peyne of cursying” can most accurately be translated as “on pain of excommunication,” a public ontological and spiritual erasure and the Church’s worst punishment for living believers. In some sense, the Summoner is carrying out his duties; yet as he accosts an innocent widow, his work becomes much less justified. In contrast, the widow’s cursing is wholly justified, for her intentions are pure. Regarding the Summoner’s damnation, Chaucer echoes Aquinas’ thoughts on heretics and the Dantean idea that sin is its own punishment (“contrappasso”). Ironically, the Summoner crosses the limen from Earth to Hell as he is collecting payment for another’s sin—akin to Judas’ devolving from greed to betrayal and murder. By juxtaposing the Summoner’s journey with Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, the Friar defends the idea of a simple faith unadulterated by greed as exemplified by the widow’s speech and actions. In some sense, the Summoner acts contrary to the commands of James 1:27: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”
The Friar’s Tale gives an example of “pure and undefiled” religion: the widow. Serving as a thematic counterpart to the Summoner, she resists his perturbation of her innocence. When the Summoner hands her a court summons, she cries:
“Now Lord,” quod she, “Crist Jhesu, kyng of kynges, So wisly helpe me, as I ne may. I have been syk, and that ful many a day.I may nat go so fer,” quod she, “ne ryde,But I be deed, so priketh it in my syde.” (1590-94)She begins with the phrase “Now Lord,” invoking God to help her in her situation. As she continues, it becomes apparent she is addressing “Christ, the King of Kings,” although it is the Summoner to whom she is speaking—this is a prayer. The “King of Kings” wording is a very specific description for Jesus Christ that is only used three times in the New Testament: 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14, and Revelation 19:16. Each of the verses has its own context, but viewed holistically, the three verses may be interpreted as iterations of Revelation 17:14: “14 They will wage war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will triumph over them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings —and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.” This is entirely apropos: the widow is waging spiritual war against the Summoner and must invoke the name of Jesus to do so (just as the carter does to move his horses). In modern English, lines 1591 to 1594 might read, “‘So help me, as I cannot. I have been sick, and that for many a day. I cannot go so far,’ she said, ‘or ride, because that would kill me-- the aches in my side are so bad.’” Her words, in the context of James 1:27 —she is a sick widow visited by a summoner who is to do right by the law— suggest her righteousness before God. If the widow’s faith is stainless, the summoner’s faith may be presumed to be in danger of the fires of Hell because his “religion” is distorted by his greed.
Critics might suggest that the summoner does act according to James 1:27: he does visit the widow, after all. Yet, the narrator adds an ironic twist—the Summoner extorts her money, rather than keeping himself “unstained from the world.” Similarly, Judas Iscariot was one of Jesus’ inner circle: the Twelve Disciples. Yet his “avaritia” inevitably grew and took on murderous intent. Chaucer’s tale seems to suggest the importance of such intent, especially as the carter curses his horses and as the summoner crosses the limen to Hell. Yet the Friar’s intent is important as well, since he mediates the Friar’s Tale to the Summoner. The difference between the Summoner and Judas, it seems to be, is a matter of ‘entente.’ The widow’s faith supplants and destroys the Summoner’s body and soul, effectively ending the narrative and silencing the Summoner. Judas has misguided intentions and is self-interested, but there is some indication that Satan entered into him (Luke 22:3-6, John 13:27). Indeed, Judas’ intentions have been controversial since antiquity and have been a rich source of artistic expression, in part due to the question of whether he has free will or is predestined to Hell.
If Judas’ intentions are presumed to be bad (following the epigraph), then his story falls in line with the Summoner’s: his greed damns him. If his intentions are not bad (i.e., he betrayed Jesus not knowing it would lead to the holy figure’s death), then Judas commits suicide out of guilt (an example of tragic irony). The latter scenario, according to Matthew 27:4, may be more plausible: “‘I have sinned,’ he [Judas] said, ‘for I have betrayed innocent blood.’” Judas admits his sin—an act of confession that carries significance since he is speaking to the chief priests. Finally, he admits his betrayal of Christ, an innocent man. This is a markedly different portrait of the avariciously murderous Judas of the Middle Ages—Judas is human. Unfortunately, the audience cannot easily identify with the Summoner, who is effectively silenced starting from line 1633. The summoner’s tale is merely dramatically ironic: the audience is aware of his sins while he is not. Judas’ tale, however, is tragically ironic: why, if Jesus predicted that Judas would betray him, did he do nothing about it? Could Jesus not have used someone else? On the other hand, the Summoner is given a chance to repent. The widow says, “but he wol hym repente” (1629). Believing he is in the right, or oblivious to the need to be in the right, the Summoner replies, “I wolde I hadde thy smok and every clooth” (1633). Even to his very last line, the Summoner expresses his greed and does not repent, making him a less sympathetic character than Judas Iscariot.
Chaucer scholar R.T. Lenaghan writes that “the Friar discredits summoners, and in the process he also discredits himself” (281). If the Friar, through the Friar’s Tale, is saying two contradictory things (that the tale should be taken seriously or ironically), then it may be presumed that Chaucer uses the Friar as an example of an unreliable narrator. Likewise, the Bible seems to suggest Judas was both possessed by the Devil to sin and that he repented of his sin to the priests (but was not forgiven, and committed suicide in Matthew 27), two fairly contradictory statements. Whether or not Judas was predestined to commit sin, it is on some level evident that his death is tragic. In the Summoner’s case, it appears that the irony of a summoner being damned by a widow is altogether appropriate; his intentions were never in the right place. While the Summoner’s abrupt liminal crossing from Earth to Hell may seem dramatic, it is not tragic. Conscientious readers may negotiate between an ironic and a literal reading of the Friar’s Tale; one need not accept the Friar’s didacticism or discredit his narration entirely. In the same way, Judas’ tale may be interpreted as a cautionary parable or as evidence of Biblical contradiction. Of course, the Summoner does bureaucratic work, which is itself dehumanizing. As punishment for his work, the Summoner is beaten well at each town’s end; on the other hand, Judas is such a notable character in the Bible precisely because he raises questions of predestination, evil, free-will, and Biblical error. While the Summoner’s end is merely dramatic, Judas’ end is fundamentally tragic. To discount Judas’ narrative is to deny sympathy for a sinner that, apart from Jesus Christ, describes all of us.
