Chaucer's Pardoner: Sex and Non-Sex

South Atlantic Modern Language Association

Chaucer's Pardoner: Sex and Non-SexAuthor(s): Stephen ManningSource: South Atlantic Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Jan., 1974), pp. 17-26Published by: South Atlantic Modern Language AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3198251 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 10:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

South Atlantic Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to South Atlantic Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.103 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:36:09 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samla

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3198251?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


CHAUCER'S PARDONER: SEX AND NON-SEX

STEPHEN MANNING

University of Kentucky

When Harry Bailly asks the Pardoner to tell a tale, the Pardoner agrees, but adds that first "I wol both drynke, and eten of a cake."' Even earlier, when Chaucer the Pilgrim introduces the Pardoner in the General Prologue, we see him riding along with the Summoner, and the two sing in duet "Com hider, love, to me" (lines 669-74). Thus Chaucer introduces a pattern of imagery which Freudian critics call oral, a pattern which basically involves taking in or spitting out of the mouth, and biting. But they expand this pattern to include figurative taking in, spitting out, and biting, and thus they incorporate into it such matters as the acquisition of knowledge or of wealth, cursing, nagging, vows, "biting" sarcasm, and so forth. As even so brief a summary suggests, there is in much of this imagery a strong aggressive element.2 I find certain aspects of this pattern and their aggressive overtones of consuming interest and wish to ruminate a bit on their meaning.

The setting of the Pardoner's tale, you will recall, is a tavern in Flanders-which provides the Pardoner the occasion for lengthy digressions on the so-called "tavern vices," gluttony, lechery, dicing, and swearing. Gluttony and swearing are obviously oral; dicing is oral in its extended sense of acquiring riches, but also as presented by the Pardoner as the "very mother" of lies, deceits, cursed for- swearings, and blasphemies of Christ (lines 591-93). As for the oral aspect of lechery, the Pardoner significantly mentions the sin only as companion to drinking: "luxurie is in wyn and dronkenesse" (line 484), and goes on to summarize the biblical story of Lot and his daughters.3 Three Rioters in this tavern are told that a drinking companion of theirs has died and is even now being buried. One Rioter vows to seek Death everywhere and urges two companions that the three of them swear brotherhood to one another and slay Death. The fact that this brotherhood is based on their sharing certain oral vices and is merely a sworn brotherhood soon becomes apparent. The three start out on their quest and encounter an old man, whom they abuse verbally. The Old Man himself is looking for Death, but in vain, he says, and then suggests to the Rioters that "it is no curteisye, / To speken to an old man vileynye" (lines 739-40). A Rioter then accuses him of being Death's spy and de- mands to know where Death is. The Old Man answers by directing

This address was delivered by President Manning at the annual SAMLA luncheon meeting in Atlanta, November 16, 1973.



18 Chaucer

them to an oak where, he says, they will find Death. They rush there and find under the tree about eight bushels of gold florins. Then, says the Pardoner, "Ne lenger . . after Deeth they soughte" (line 772).

What happens then to their sworn brotherhood? Two Rioters plot to kill the third while he's in town buying bread and wine, and the third tells the apothecary he needs some poison to kill some rats and also a polecat that's after his chickens. The apothecary says he has just the thing, and this Rioter poisons two of the bottles of wine. Appropriately enough, both sets of plans work out: the two Rioters pretend to play with the third and kill him with their daggers, then they sit down and drink the poisoned wine. Nobody lives, period, let alone happily ever after.

This turn of events combines the two oral motifs of food-drink and of swearing in a grotesque parody of a communal meal. There may indeed be overtones of the Eucharist,4 but I am thinking pri- marily in terms of the social implications of sharing food in com- mon, as in the feasting in Old English poetry, for instance. The verbal level of swearing brotherhood is thus a false surface which glosses over an underlying reality of a different sort. In this tale we learn among other things to mistrust what is said, to see only an oblique relationship between what is said and the brotherhood which actually exists. The verbal brotherhood has merely been a convenient means of carrying out an act of aggression-slaying Death-and when that act is frustrated, it takes another form which undercuts what the verbal swearing seems to say. What the swearing refers to obliquely is the underlying aggression. I will have more to say later of this verbal obliquity, but at the moment there are other aspects of oral imagery with similar underlying currents of aggression. An important aspect is the figurative sense of "taking in" as deception. In the General Prologue, Chaucer the Pilgrim speaks of the Pardoner's feigned flattery and tricks (lines 694-706). In his own prologue to his tale the Pardoner insists on how effectively he takes in gullible people (i.e., those who "swallow" what they're told). He refers to his "false japes" (line 394) and is

quite specific as to his techniques (italics mine): First I pronounce whennes that I come, And thanne my bulles shewe I, alle and some. Our lige lordes seel on my patente, That shewe I first, my body to warente, That no man be so boold, ne preest ne clerk, Me to destourbe of Cristes hooly werk. And after that thanne telle I forth my tales; Bulles of popes and of cardynales,



South Atlantic Bulletin 19

Of patriarkes and bishopes I shewe, And in Latin I speke a wordes fewe, To saffron with my predicacioun, And for to stire hem to devocioun. (lines 335-46)

He then shows long crystal stones crammed full of rags and bones which his audience thinks are relics. He advises them that if a shoulder-bone of a holy Jew's sheep is dipped in water, all cows, calves, sheep, and oxen will be cured of all sorts of diseases; furthermore, if the owner of these beasts will drink the same water, his store will multiply. And even furthermore, this same potion will cure jealousy and no man will ever again mistrust his wife. It is interesting that the Pardoner makes so much of the healing power of his relics, as I shall comment upon shortly. Here let me comment that the Pardoner's "hard sell" technique has much of the aggression behind oral imagery.

The relics are, of course, completely phony, and stand in the same relation to genuine relics as the verbal level of swearing brotherhood bears to genuine brotherhood, as the Pardoner's absolution bears to Christ's absolution-a false appearance which nonetheless points, however obliquely, to an alternate underlying reality, and derives its surface meaning from a partial identification with that reality. The healing power of the Pardoner's relics gains its surface value at the same time it grotesquely parodies the underlying reality of the healing power of Christ's pardon, and the verbal absolution of the Pardoner grotesquely parodies Christ's absolution because his words lack the spiritual effect which Christ's absolution brings about.

But not only does the Pardoner "take in," i.e., deceive his audience, he takes in a hundred marks a year by his tricks (lines 389-90), and these two aspects of oral imagery merge into each other. The Pardoner is indeed greedy: "I wol have moneie, wolle, cheese, and whete," he says, even though it should come from the poorest widow whose children will starve to death as a result (lines 449-51). His theme is one, he says, and always was: "Radix malorum est cupiditas" (lines 332-33). He preaches against the very vice of which he himself is so guilty (lines 427-28). But again, despite their surface meaning, the words conflict with the reality, says the Pardoner, for what his words really reveal (he says in effect) is tnar he is greedy, he is cupidinous. But he tells us again and again how vicious he is, how his whole motivation has nothing to do with spiritual values but only with his own avarice.5 On one level this over-insistence creates such an exaggerated tone that surely the Pardoner is striving for a particular effect-playing the role of entertainer, of clown.6 His relics are not all that is outlandish: he



20 Chaucer

himself is as phony as his relics. That is, he presents himself as an amusing hypocrite. His words in preaching-he says-reflect a different reality than what they seem to on the surface. But these words about himself, this self-analysis, may also hide the reality, substitute for the reality, may also be but appearance. His purpose in playing the entertainer is to invite laughter (oral imagery again), but in a special sense. Laughter can indicate various things, but what the Pardoner wants is a communion-a sharing of the joke; in effect, he is trying to force the pilgrims to share with him, just as he forces his parish audience to give up their money and thereby "share" with him. The laughter he is seeking is a confirmation of his self-analysis; yet he is trying to force this confirmation on his audience-a curious mixture of aggression and sharing.

The Pardoner uses this technique not only before his tale proper, but also-in a much more heightened form-after he com- pletes his tale. The terms are even more exaggerated, so that the comic effect is greater, and more obvious. My relics are as good as any man's in England, he says, so come up and get my absolution; in fact, why don't you get it as you go along, all new and fresh, at the end of every mile-just so you offer again and again real money. Aren't you lucky, he asks, that you have a pardoner suffi- cient to absolve you in case one or two of you should fall off his horse and break his neck? What security to have me along! I advise our Host to be the first, for he's the most enveloped in sin. Come forth, Sir Host, and be the first to make your offering, and you'll get to kiss every one of my relics for only a groat. Unbuckle your purse! (lines 920-45) But if the comedy is greater here, so is the aggression.

The motif of the Pardoner's relics is moving swiftly towards its final use in Harry Bailly's response, but what the Pardoner ostensibly wants is Harry to kiss his relics, to share orally in the deception, to share orally in the joke, to confirm the Pardoner's self portrait. This is the same goal as seeking the pilgrims' laughter. He is trying to force Harry into a game whose rules he has made up. Harry begins that way: "Nay, nay! . . thanne have I Cristes curs!" (line 946)-that is, Christ's curse, not His pardon. But then Harry plays the game his way. Before discussing this shift in game plans, let me talk a bit more about this aspect of aggression in oral imagery-the basic image of biting and its derivatives.

The Pardoner himself is at least partially aware of his own aggressiveness; he says,

For whan I dar noon oother weyes debate, Thanne wol I stynge hym with my tonge smerte To been defamed falsly, if that he Hath trespased to my bretheren or to me. (lines 412-16)




And again, "Thus spitte I out my venym under hewe / Of hooly- nesse, to semen holly and trewe" (lines 421-22). He thus relates his oral aggression with his hypocrisy, underscoring once again the gulf between the verbal surface and the real underlying reality to which it refers. Now, in psychological terms, aggressiveness is "masculine," passivity "feminine" (both terms are, of course, merely descriptive of psychological qualities whether they appear in a man or a woman). The Pardoner is, as I've indicated, unusually aggressive orally. But the symbol par excellence for aggression is the phallus; I suggest that the Pardoner substitutes oral aggression for phallic aggression. And I point out also that the tongue is after all a phallic symbol.

Interestingly enough, and I point this out only as interesting, Chaucer compares the Pardoner to three animals usually associated with lechery-the hare, the goat, and the horse. His eyes glare as a hare's (line 684); then a few lines later, "A voys he hadde as smal as hath a goot" (688). What is interesting is that it is the voice which is compared to the goat. At this point Chaucer the Pilgrim continues as though to explore the connotations of the goat image:

No berd hadde he, ne nevere sholde have; As smoth it was as it were late shave. I trowe he were a geldyng or a mare. (lines 689-91)

The horse image thus concludes the series.7 The lack of virility- of whatever natures-is also pointed up by Harry Bailly when he invites the Pardoner to tell a tale. He laments how he's almost had a heart attack out of pity for the maid Virginia in the tale just concluded: "Myn herte is lost for pitee of this mayde" (line 317). Then he immediately says, "Thou beel amy, thou Pardoner

. / Telle us som myrthe or japes right anon" (lines 318-19). I think Harry well intends to associate ideas connected with mayde in his address to the Pardoner as beel amy.

If the tongue as part of the pattern of oral imagery is also a phallic symbol, then what? We're now back to Harry Bailly's reply to the Pardoner's invitation to come up and kiss his relics:9

"Thou woldest make me kisse thyn olde breech, And swere it were a relyk of a seint, Though it were with thy fundement depeint! But, by the croys which that Seint Eleyne fond, I wolde I hadde thy coillons in myn hond In stide of relikes or seintuarie. Lat kutte hem of, I wol thee helpe hem carie; They shul be shryned in an hogges toord!" (lines 948-55) The tone of this passage bothers some critics, and indeed it is



22 Chaucer

difficult to establish precisely. But I think that the Host realizes that the Pardoner has been playing a verbal game, and that he responds in kind with a verbal game which Johan Huizinga calls "the slanging match"10 or exchange of insults (as some blacks today play "the dozens"). Harry has caught the tone of aggressiveness in the Pardoner's verbal game, and Harry is not one merely to play games, but rather to win them. His tone is therefore partly jocular, partly aggressive.

What Harry says we can call, along with the Freudians, oral castration. And the Pardoner's response? He "answerede nat a word; / So wrooth he was, no word ne wolde he seye" (lines 956-57). His tongue is silent-an appropriate response for oral castration. "Now," says Harry, "I don't want to play any longer with you or with any angry man" (lines 958-59). The pilgrims laugh-another form of oral castration-and while laughter is the result the Pardoner had been seeking with his sales pitch, it has exactly the opposite effect of what he has been seeking. The communion is not there. The Knight now directs the Pardoner to be merry and the Host to kiss the Pardoner, and for everyone as before to laugh and play (lines 963-67). So, "Anon they kiste, and ryden forth hir weye" (line 968). The kiss of the relics which was to certify the self-portrait of the Pardoner becomes a kiss of peace, of reconciliation in terms completely other than those the Pardoner intended.

The Host's words to the Pardoner-his oral castration of the Pardoner-point to another, physical reality expressed much earlier by Chaucer in the Pilgrim's terms gelding or mare. The Pardoner has relied heavily on his verbal skill; he has perhaps unconsciously chosen Harry Bailly simply because Harry is one of the most virility-conscious of the pilgrims. The Pardoner has always relied on his words, but as he himself has admitted, words do not reflect

reality openly, but only obliquely. Harry, however, uses words here to openly reflect the reality. And his words have the same kind of psychological effect that the Pardoner's have-force: they force the Pardoner to yield to their power and be silent. But if Harry speaks openly, and the Pardoner obliquely, what do the Pardoner's words "mean"? What is the reality towards which they obliquely refer? The same reality to which Harry's words refer, but because they are oblique, they tell us more than Harry's directness.1 On one

possible occasion, however, the Pardoner seems to speak directly; but again, it is a passage whose tone has disturbed the critics. Immediately after he tells his tale, and before he begins his sales

pitch, the Pardoner states: And lo, sires, thus I preche.

And Jhesu Crist, that is oure soules leche,




So graunte yow his pardoun to receyve, For that is best; I wol yow nat deceyve. (lines 915-18)

This has been called a moment of sincerity, and so it seems to me. This is the reality which is really reflected. But in light of our discussion of the obliqueness of the Pardoner's language, it is not the only reality. It is also part of the tone he adopts for his pilgrim audience: I certainly do not want to deceive you as I have deceived others. It is perhaps thus a final touch to his deliberately drawn self-portrait of vice and corruption. Then-is it because he becomes aware of its ambiguity? is it a slip of the tongue?-he switches immediately to his sales pitch, where the ambiguity is reduced, and he resumes his role of entertainer, of clown, and his words now reflect this role.

The obliqueness of the Pardoner's language may perhaps be- come clearer if I refer to the tale he tells. The Rioters start out on a quest of aggression-to slay Death. As has been observed, once this aggression is set in motion it has to spend itself, and the tale moves rapidly to its conclusion of homicide. But Death itself has been presented as an aggressor-he is a thief who with his spear has slain the Rioters' companion. (I do not comment on the image of the spear.) Death is the aggressor to whom the Rioters in their turn must yield. But the Rioters seek to slay him first, to meet aggression on its own terms, to overcome it. Their greed, however, diverts them from their original intention, and their aggression finds a new outlet.12 Similarly, the Pardoner is delayed in his quest by cupidity, by oral acquisition. But is he, like the Rioters, ultimately seeking to overcome Death? Is his physical inability-of whatever specific nature-a kind of death, a lack of fulness of being? The Pardoner's cupidity, at any rate, brings down death upon himself in a spiritual sense. There thus seems a definite analogy between physical limitation, oral castration, and spiritual condition. I noted earlier that when the Pardoner gives his parish sales pitch, he speaks of the healing powers of his phony relics. And on more than one occasion he is concerned with Christ's pardon; indeed, what draws him to his occupation as pardoner in the first place? Perhaps the alternate title for pardoner has a rele- vance here-quaestor. He functions as a parody of an alter Christus in his words of absolution. Is it Christ's pardon that the Pardoner really seeks, but warped by sin, he constantly distorts his search, is constantly diverted by his cupidity? Isn't this the lot of the habitual sinner-to know basically, yet refuse to fully realize?1'

Then there is the Old Man in the tale itself, whom the Rioters accost. He's still another critical crux, and has been vari- ously identified as Old Age, Death, not Death but Dying, just an



24 Chaucer

old man, the god Odin, the unregenerate man of the Old Testa- ment, and so on. All I can contribute to the controversy is to point out that he is simultaneously a familiar character in folk tales and a projection of at least one aspect of the Pardoner's personality. The folk tale character is the wise old man or woman who tests the hero, then satisfied with the hero's response, helps him with advice, information, or talisman of some sort.14 I'm not sure what the test is in the Pardoner's Tale: perhaps it is a test of courtesy, or, what I prefer, one which invites appropriate response to his reason for living so long:

For I ne kan nat fynde A man, though that I walked into Ynde Neither in citee ne in no village, That wolde chaunge his youthe for myn age. (lines 721-24)

In other words, there is a significant connection between the Old Man's search for death with a wish for regeneration. For Death, the Old Man says, will not have his life and thus he must go about like a restless caitiff,

And on the ground, which is my moodres gate, I knokke with my staf, bothe erly and late, And seye, "Leeve mooder, leet me in!" (lines 727-31)

I will not comment on the staff as a phallic symbol nor on the Old Man's impotence, but stress instead his desire for regeneration.

But lest my own words, like those of the Pardoner, have been too oblique throughout, let me now try to make some sense out of what I have been saying. I have said that in the Pardoner's Pro- logue and Tale Chaucer uses an intricate pattern of oral imagery: 1) a pattern of food and drink which combines with that of swearing in the sworn brotherhood of the Rioters and the poisoned communion of bread and wine. I suggested further some implications of the relation of the verbal surface to the underlying meaning-the contrast between the sworn brotherhood and the poisoned wine which denies that brotherhood; but like the poisoned wine, the brotherhood itself arises from the need for aggression (the goal of slaying Death is what causes the Rioters to swear brotherhood); 2) a pattern of oral aggression in the Pardoner's cupidity, hypocrisy, and "taking in" his parish listeners. Relatedly, there is a problem of to what extent he takes in his pilgrim listeners and indeed deceives himself in the self portrait which he has given. I suggested further that the Pardoner's tongue is a phallic symbol, and this aspect of oral imagery ends in oral castration by Harry Bailly, repeated in the pilgrims' laughter, so that the brotherhood which the Pardoner has attempted to create with the pilgrims by his words, ends-as the Rioters' sworn brotherhood-in




disintegration rather than unity, until the Knight forces the Host and the Pardoner by his words to a kiss of peace. The pattern of oral aggression thus ends in oral reconciliation and indeed suggests the possibility of ultimate reconciliation through Christ's pardon; and 3) under this pattern of oral imagery lies a complex pattern of the relationship between the Pardoner's words and what they really mean, that is, between what he says these words really mean, and what they really do mean.

As a result of these observations I have set up a series of analogies: the Pardoner's being a gelding or mare is analogous to oral castration is analogous to spiritual death, and these analogies reinforce and I think mutually illumine each other. Mloreover, the verbal texture either denies the reality it expresses or points obliquely beyond it to a search for spiritual regeneration and for the healing power of Christ's pardon. The Pardoner seems in effect a pardoner unconsciously in search of pardon. He is, at any rate, caught up in the vicious circle of his own sinfulness, and Chaucer gives us a powerful portrait of a man caught in his own habitual sin. The more he "takes in" his audience and forces them through his rhetoric to give up their money to him, the more he deceives himself. The more he deceives himself, the more he tries to hide his physical disability. The more he tries to hide it, the more obvious it becomes, for his words betray him. The more his words betray him, the more prone he is to oral castration and simultaneously to the moment of truth-which he seems unwilling to face. So the cycle begins anew: he "takes in" his parish audience and thereby deceives himself. He is caught in his own sin. As the Old Man in his tale, he is engaged in a ceaseless quest. He also offers a beautiful demonstration of St. Augustine's concept of how God punishes sinners; the saint glosses Ps. v.9 (He hath opened a pit and dug it; and he is fallen into the hole he made. His sorrow shall be turned on his own head, and his iniquity shall come down upon his crown) as "When God punishes, then, He does so as a judge punishes lawbreakers; He inflicts no penalty of His own, He merely casts them forth into the evil of their choice to fill up the cup of their misery."'1 But the possibility for repentance re- mains; he is not the one lost soul on the pilgrimage-not yet. The Pardoner says that Christ's pardon is best. But perhaps my verbal onslaught on the Pardoner disfigures him further. If I have not made sense nor lived up to my title, I beg your pardon and I thank you for your indulgence.

NOTES 1. Lines 321-22 in the ed. of F. N. Robinson (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,

1961), from which all my quotations come.



26 Chaucer

2. Very helpful here are the discussions by Henry Murray, Explorations in Personality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1938), pp. 370-79, and Otto Fenichel, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (New York: W. W. Norton, 1945), pp. 62-66.

3. When he refers to his own determination to have a "joly wenche in every toun" (line 453), it is the last of a series which demonstrates his avarice.

4. See Robert E. Nichols, Jr., "The Pardoner's Ale and Cake," PMLA, 82 (1967): 498-504. Three basic articles for an appreciation of the Pardoner are G. L. Sedgwick, "The Progress of Chaucer's Pardoner, 1880-1940," MLQ, 1 (1940): 431-58; John Halverson, "Chaucer's Pardoner and the Progress of Criti- cism," Ch R, 4 (1970): 184-202; and Robert P. Miller, "Chaucer's Pardoner and the Scriptural Eunuch," Speculumi, 30 (1955): 180-99.

5. See Seymour L. Gross, "Conscious Verbal Repetition in the Pardoner's Prologue," NdrQ, 198 (1953): 413-14.

6. See, e.g., Halverson, who speaks of the Pardoner's "put-on," p. 197; Paul E. Beichner, "Chaucer's Pardoner as Entertainer," MS, 25 (1963): 160-72; and James L. Calderwood, "Parody in The PardoneT's Tale," ES, 45 (1964): 302-09. I might also note here a remark by Ernest Kris, Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art (New York: International Universities Press, e1952), p. 38: "The approval of an audience encourages self-approval. If others can share, the fear of the super- ego is abated; unconscious self-criticism can be kept in abeyance."

7. Miller points out the series (p. 182) but does not relate it to oral imagery. 8. Whether he is homosexual or eunuch hardly seems to matter; I tend to

agree with Halverson that "The Pardoner's sexuality is his secret" (p. 195). 9. There might be a sexual pun here; it's the wrong sex in the Roman de

la rose, line 21600. The invitation to Harry to unbuckle his purse may also be a pun. Both might help explain Harry's response.

10. Homo Ludens (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955), pp. 68-71. 11. Cf. Bert Kaplan: "The actions that psychologists . . . call defenses . . .

are generally understood to involve the subject's deceiving himself into believing that he doe's not have some impulse that he in fact really does have. However, since it is he who is doing the deceiving, it would seem that there must be some sense in which the disguise is not really deceptive and in which the person is allowing himself to express indirectly what he would prefer not to acknowl- edge openly. The defense is really, I believe, not against the impulse or re- pressed process but against its open and explicit acknowledgment which would have serious consequences for the person's relationships and for the conception of himself that he is trying to present," "Personality Study and Culture," in Studying Personality Cross-Culturally (New York: Harper and Row, 1961) p. 309.

12. See Jason Marks, "Tales from Chaucer as Projections of Their Tellers' Needs," unpub. diss. New York Univ., 1971, pp. 243-66.

13. Aquinas distinguishes between a thing which is known habitually and a thing which is considered actually, Suinmna, Ia-IIae, q. lxxvii, a. 2. What this means in effect is that despite all his insistence on his viciousness (known habitually), the Pardoner does not actually consider the sinfulness of his be- havior. A retort such as the Host's could certainly lead to actual consideration, however.

14. Motif N 825.2 and .3 in Stith Thompson, Motif-index of Folk Literature (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1955-58).

15. Ennarationes in Psalmos, trans. Scholastica Hebgin and Felicitas Corri- gan (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1960), "Ancient Christian Writers" 29: 56-57.



Date post:	01-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	stephen-manning
View:	214 times
Download:	2 times

Chaucer's Pardoner: Sex and Non-Sex

Documents