oaths mb impbeoatiohs in ghauger8s canterbury tales...
TRANSCRIPT
Oaths and imprecations in Chaucer's Canterbury tales
Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Birdsall, Esther Katherine Schiefer, 1924-
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.
Download date 06/07/2018 00:00:51
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/318978
OATHS M B IMPBEOATIOHS IN GHAUGER8S CANTERBURY TALES
Approved^
he-
IV Ko Blrisall
A Thesis d t@ the faeulty
Master @f Arts
Graduate IMiTersity of Arizona
1 9 5.
Director of The sis ^ Ddte
E W I'/fs-o
.
$4BI,E OF OOHfBHfS
GHAPTIR RASE
'ASBR1HAT10HS ©E fHE 1BITIW0S OF CHAUCER 0 ..a...,,, ill
I © © o o o G O o o o e o o o o o o o e - s o © o o e o o o o o o o 2»
ZXa mpiEVAl, ATTITUDES AED GUSTG# EELATIVETO SWE AJEl X W 0 © & © & © © ©© © © © © ©© © © ©©.,©© © © © © © © & ©© © ©&
XXIa ANALYSIS OF TEE GATES IN THE GANTEEBUEYTALES ©.-©©© 0 0.0 © © O © © © O O © © © © © © © © © © © O © ■© © © ©OO O © ©O
0 O b *fel3 .^ •• o o o © © © © o © © o © © © O:o o © © © 0 0 © ^ S »
D X 3 H 2 .© B ll3 @ © © ." fe l3 .3 © © © © © © © © © © © o © o 0 © o © © © o o i &
O Q .* f e l lS " fe ll© S ^ X l l ^ S © © 0 0 0 Q 0 ® O Q 0 O 6 Q O Q. 0 d o o o p S 5
. t E/IS- 3 © © X X © .Z !1© O ^ S © © .’f e l l s © © o o o o © • © o ©i p d o 6 @ 6 © o o o o o
X Vo SUmmBY AND GGNGLUSIOW o © © © © * © :$#
E X E L X O O E A j P E Y © 0 0 0 O O e © o o » o 0 © o < > © © o o o o © o & o © o © o o o o o o o o
A B B E E F DX!H r i?- X © o © 6 © 0 © o © © © o © o © © © o © o o o o © © e o o © o © ©. © © o e o & & 5
A B F E N D X i X ! X X © © © ©. © © © © © © © o o @ © © @ © © o © © © © © © © © © © o o © © © © © © S 4 ?
W m ^ i A s i m u of the writings of changer
. - The Goofc;$s -Frele'gme -Cfef ; . The Cook’s TaleGlFrei 1 ' The Clerk ?e’ Prologxae : ; ■'Clf ■ ' The -Clerk’e Tale . :CT The Canterbury TalesCTPrel The Canen’s Yeoman5 s Prologue
r.GYT ; : : The .Camoh9 s Yeomh ■ s .Tale A .FranklProl The Franklin’s Prologue . >FramklT The Franklin’s TaleFrprbi/:; ; ’ ' v . The ■Frlar9/s Prologue .,.FrTA: A • TIb Friar’s Tale , - avGeuPrel' v The General Prologue • ■AHF The House of FameKhT The might ’ s- Tale " . A'ti>#: A. The Legend of Good Women -• HahWfol ; The Manelple’s Prologue ■ ;- HaheT " The Maneiple9 s TaleSelProl . m e Prologue of BeliheeMe IT : .A The Tale of Mellhee : ' vr..MerehProl . ' The Merehant 9s Prologue 'Mer'ShT . - The Merehant9 s TaleElilProl The Miller8s PrologueMillT The Miller ’s Tale .-AMkPTol : The Monk’s Prologue 'BlkT ' The Monk’s Tale, a ,: MSlpi Epilogue to Man of Law’s TaleHilnt Man of Law’s Intredilot Ion :lOProl . ; Man of Law8 s Prologue A A aMLT : ' - A :. A Han of Law’s Tale ■ .HPPrel^■ The Nun’s Priests PrologueNPT., The Nun’s Priest’s Tale.PardProl / The Pardoner’s ProloguePardT The Pardoner’s Tale 'PafsProT- The Parson’s prologue.ParsT v": The Parson’s Tale.PhT The Physl elan’s TalePrint The Prioress’ Introdustlon _•PrProl;; .' The Prioress ’' Prologue;- .Prf ■ ' ' The Prioress’. TaleBvProl The Reeve’s PrologueEvT ‘ The Reeve’s Tale ■ . • ^.’ShT: - a ■ # e 'ghipman’ s' Tale: :- ;. v -S^rol aAA.A . - The Squire’s Prologue \ '@qT A '' The Squire’s Tale . . -.
STProl; the Pralogue ©f Sir ThogasSTf- . ' Sir Th#pas ° Tale 'SmmPral ; The Sximmone s Prologue
- S w f ' The Swiaener? s TaleTr Treilus and Griseyde.IBProl The : Wife of Bathes Prolegme
. ::1BT ' ■ :The Wif ©■ of lath®s - Tale . ; '
0HAPTEB-1
Ther©- Is a general agreement among recent seMolars ■ ana: erities that-Geoffrey Ohaueer was a eonselous artist an# mot an -mntntorea.genius0 His eonseious art is revealed parti ally in Mis. aMlitf y^t© reeogniz© the power of s©leet=> ed details® TMIs fa©tor is apparent In ©omparisons of Mis works witM Mis sourees9 the latter having been improved and ehri©M@a through selected additions and omissions0 It. is' the purpose of this study to' ascertain ©haueer-9s selective Ability in the ©Molee of oaths for the heterogeneous group. of pilgrims and .for the eha-raet.ers of the individual stories im -the ganterburv .falese : - I ' . " - -- • ' ...that ©haueer6s choice of oaths' for the characters of
; the ©an ter bury. Tales represents' a - deliberate selection "is no,t a new .1 de&o It has; been implied In the editions of Skeat8 Manly3 and Robinson in their explanatory.notes ant eomments ©n several asseverations 0 The amount of research on the significance of the Prioress9s oath by Saint M y is In .itself additiohal evidence that scholars- are aware of a
-.- - Eleanor Po. Hammonds, English Terse Between ©haueer and Surrey. p0 I#'* I, ' :: :r" -
sele@tl©a involved ia the asseveratl ©ns 0' 5 . .Herbert W6 Starr, has als© emphasized seleetion ia his
r@@ent comprehensive study of the oaths ia @haue@r9s poetry©He collected and classified the .oaths ia The Ganterhary.zai@s9 The Book of the Duchess3 The House of Fame,Parliament of fowlsa Troilus and and Theof Good Womeno He distinguishes the oath from the curse bydefining the latter as 'Ha- malediction' invoking evil .or mis >' ■ ' : ■. ■' 4 v • . - ; : ; :/ -fortume ©a a person or thing®w H© considers an oath asexclamations frequently profane8 either expressing an emotional state of confirming a statement or proMseo An ©z=- .press!on such as "by f©dw is a basic oath ■and ’’as wlsly. helps me grete #od of kynde” is an elaboration of a basi© oath in Starr9s;stidy6 These elaborations are usually found ' when the basi© oath is not sufficiently eXpresslv® in ©rm©ial situations o The ©ompound ©ath9 a combination of #od9s' name and,that'of a sainf8 als© gives an asseveration increased . intensity* Btarr also points out the absence of obscene, oaths in Ghaneer9s works and attributes that lack to the fact
^Studies relating to the significance ©f- the Prioresses oath are discussed in ©hapter IIIo;■; ; : Herbert' W *' Starr 9 St©aths in Ghaueer ® s Poem 8 ” West • ■
Bullet In : Phil#logi©al-. Studies IT
goes to what Is banned$»Kbeeamse "for his swearing man either a
Howerer p the most important finding of his survey for the present study is that the poems show a tendenoy to ©on- ' fine ©ertaim oaths to certain social classes0 The anatomical oaths are confined t© the lower class9 while the classical oaths ar© confined to the nobilityo Starr cites numerous examples showing this distinction in Ghaneer’s works 9- and he. also observes that other ©aths show class preference<, .However* ©hanoeris selection as emphasized in Starr^s study9 is limited to a choice based on medieval social organization and to that between the basic and elaborated ©r compound ©athso Starr obviously discounts the significance of rhyme in relation to the elaborated oaths % as well as the effectof specific oaths ©n the work as.a whole0
. ■ 0 - According to Miss Ea@mond*s bibliography there is alsoa dissertation on the oaths in @hamoer9s poetry9 "BieVersi cherumgen bei Shaueer" written by Smg© Lange in 1893»Every effort was made to secure the works but the Interlibrary
■ . ■ ,to locate the thegiSo However a
0 Sbldoi pi if o 0 E 0 Pb Hamm©nd9 ©hamcer« A Bib 11 ogre Ms
p0 ifio • ■■ . ■6a Since * this;;, manuscript was typed ? the student has ha# an opportunity to' See Lange ? s. the si Sa Ofa I IIJ pa 84 J for summary a
4
Max Kal|ig&9s review @f the dissertation was available8 anda brief snmmarf is ineluded in this essay=
Lang@°s dissertation a@@ord|ng to Kaluga is a ©onipila<=ties of affirmations whioh abound in @hameer®s poetry0 Inmost eases they merely fill in.a line or serve as a ©em~
' 8venient rhyme word® Shau@@r terrowed most of these expressions from earlier, medieval writings9 especially from, the romances® He was not original in employing these affirmation s9 and hens© Lang© ©rrs in ©ailing him ®th© father of English poetry® on the basis of thsse expressionsa Kaluga ‘is also ©onvlneed'that ©haueer would have don® well if he had freed his poetry from this ballast of asseverations<>
Lange us®d the' Morris edition of Ghaueer whieh'ineludes su©h works as "The Flower and ' the Leaf® and "The Sourt of Love® as dhauoerian works = Kaluga believes tiat the dif<? f©r©ne@s in affirmations should have been sufficient evidence t© enable Lange to separate the genuine from the spurious works in the Morris editlorn® He also criticises Lange fornot having examined 0haue©r°s pros© works as these do not
9present the. problem of rhyme0 Furthermore $, Lang® evidently
Max Ealuaa. review of Hug© Lang©9 @ w9i® Versleherungen' bei Chaucer® Englische Stud-l^n'v-XZII,: ' ..® It is difficult to decide which ideas are Lang©9s and
which are Kaluga°s In this review® This Is ©specially true ■ of the statement.concerning the function of the. affirmations®
^ Starr0■©p® ©it® a p® §?, observes that Chaucer9s pros© works are "most barren ground.for the hunter of oaths®"
did mot Mother to ©it© the varioms of @aehaffiraatidn9 and he also mad© saoh glaring errors as id@n=? ■tifying Saint H@©t (Hot©)- as Hoahd Kalxaza eoneludes the refiaw W stating that the work was neededs M t the dis= •sextati'oa mast be used with reservation by anyone desiring •am. ©ri©ata11oa t© th© affirmations In [email protected] poetrys
Kalmza^s review does not diseuss the problem of seleetion relative to th©: #aths,in ehaue©r8s works, The maim pmrpos©#f this essay is to ascertain the extent of ©hamoer/s eom= seioms ohoie© as manifested by the ©aths in th© Janteerbmry Talesa Th® plan and' prgeedure ©f this stmdy are .similar t© Starr®s« All-th© ©aths of the 0anterbury Tales have been ©©lleeted and slassifled int© f#mr categories: (1) ©athsby the deity;-(2) dismembering oaths; (5) oaths by the saintss (4) misoellaneems ©aths9 The analysts is limited to-the m®r©:. Significant ©aths of eaeh categoryg bmt all the ass©ves^ations are listed in the appendix 0_
.;gin@© this study implies that the ©aths in th© ganterbmry Tales are the re salt #f eons ©ions selection^ a brief survey #f attitmdes and practices with regard to medieval swearing is essential as these would be ©haueer9s basis for selection®A dlsenaslon ©f .these attitudes; and pra@tie@s eonstit'utes- th@ seeond Chapter® The third chapter presents an analysis .©f the mere significant asseverations in- the four eategor? ies in the light of medieval tradition and in relation to the Canterbury Tales as a whole®'. Th© fourth chapter la a
s'OMaai’jr with, a ©on elms I oa regarding evidences of eons e Ions saleetlon in Shameer9s wonko -
Tarloms problems are involved In a stmiy of'the assev» ©rations» Am oath is defined in the Oxford English Dietiom<=
an appeal made lightly in ordinary speeeh in forr©h©=- ; ration of a statement 9 ©t©0| a ©ar©l@ss use of the • name of God or Ghrist9 or of something sa@redg in asseveration or Impr@©at4©ng or a formmla of words involving this ‘ieftea with suppression or pervert slon of the saered name 1 and beooming at length praeti^ ©ally .meaningless9 or a mere expression- of anger, star- prise9 or other strong feeling; an aet of profane swear-
Althomgh this definitions along with the vast amomnt of medieval literature on ©aths^ is seemingly all inelmsive,|t is nevertheless difflemlt at times to differentiate be<=
This is espeolally
«n
rlom for snoh'’But si
w M t that is 11rsTg S8;8)»
@al expressions 1 romye word ?ye,
it is of yv@l3
^ The Parson^s criterion is still valid la theSwearing is ©ailing ©a God to witness t@ the trmth @f a statement» Smeh. oaths are sinful whenever false @r mmeeessaff j i0 ©o $ calling on God to witness to the trmth of false statement s ©r of a trme one when it is enough to make a simple affirmation9 Gatholi®
p. isso . . ^
9
Bie funetioa of oaths as mere rhyme words poses a more‘ difflemlt prohlem0 Ghaueer obviously ©hose some of tte
' . . . . V 12asseyerations simply on the has is of rliym©8 but there, is; - as yet me fool-proof formula for isolatimg these rhyme tags0 Howeyer9 ia this surrey all oaths which rhyme consistently With the same word as well as those which .manifest n© im= portamt funetlon relative.t© the situation or character are considered as mere rhyme words*
111 line referenees: to the Canterbury fales are based ©a lobiasomfs“edition^ fhe Gomplet© Works of Geoffrey Chaucero A list of abbreviations used in this study is found on, pagefiiio 1 > / ;V%:- I-
....John If Lowes3 "The Prioress’s Oath3!S Romanic Review Y (Oetober-Beeember 1914)g p. 568 observes that the emphasis on the oaths as rhyme - words: earn be earried t© th© . extremity ©f reducing most of the Canterbury Tales t© . •rhymed doggerel9 ■ •
©HAEfER II
MEDIEVAL ATTITUDES AID CUSTOMS RELATIVE TO S
fti3?pos0 ©f thisIt Las "beem stated that the smVTey Isthe oaths he assigned t© various eharae.terso However s a. ; valid ©onelmslon earn he reaehed ©Ely toy examining ■: the evl=-
his wort |m. the light of medieval attitudes and,;e.s relative to swearing0 ■
Swearing' was one of the '.-toesetting evils of the day in s age a©©©rSing to the medieval seraon extraets In
• © 0 1 Ro Gwst9a; ©ha.pters on KThe.-Rrea©hing of Satire and ©omplalntoV" 1 The knight is' eharaeterized as toeing "pollutedwith great /foulness of words:wh© swears the more detestably' " : . ' . . ■ 15 - , . ' " . - . •" : ;
and- fears @od t M less«, ®. Merehants were also addle ted to ' : . ' 1 14 . : : . : ■ ; ■ .■ v, 1
'false ©thysa» . and mmitoers of the noMli ty were aooused ©fadopting swearing as jmst another fado .'Even the servants of the ohuroh were mot free from the habit9 and son© are
©p. ' R® ©wst a Literature and Rmlnit in Medieval L 5 P o ■. 55© o • , '
E|@pi©t@eL as devoting more time ®t@ sweyynge Hi an to theThese and many other examples scattered
thronghomt ©wst?©.work and mentioned in varloms .medieval treatises ©n morals and religion attest to the 'fast that swearing was sommon among all ©lasses of sooietf in ■
The prevalence of this habit had' Its ;s la varlomiaspects ©f medieval llf©Q The social8 e©onSiii©8 and Iflltieal S'
a r vows with the solera @ath8 ' IS"s@ help me God and all his saints^ R . These vows tomohed
all phases @f medieval society sm#h as the ©hmr©h8giallds 9 and knlghthoodo Medieval literature also has manyexamples ©f the premium placed.on fidelity to tlBse,variomsvowso The,sworn brotherhoods depicted in several of •.Ghancervs tales are typical of another medieval instltiatlheld intact thrangh vowso Is the latter part ©f the fomrtee nth century these brotherhoods implied'"perfect frleniship pledged on an oath8 a friendship which ^could not he
Itbroken and superseded all other ties*®
I M d 6 <p Pe Sf©6J0 Jusserandg Bngljsh Wayfaring life in the Middle
sesa"Po SfSg states that during the reign ©f 11©hard II>foreign countries, had to swear that;they
to the fealty of their king#Edith Riekert
If©; 19©< If
Ghaucer %s WorldabPol©9«
MaeEdward leach9 edo§ Amis and Imilema» p® Ixxi,
Hewever,
shrimes the ©:
roleat SheBse S.o Go
a pres'
th© fast tMt BBdieTal maa lived ia She SO
©Marek from th© ©rail© t# the grave Is the stremgest ©oatriMtiag fa©tors t@
e period® $h© mam© of Gods the names and salats$ the relies venerated at varloms
sis ©m the saeraments and salvation la am aura ©f
p t o T c
more easily t© profame ejaealatieap”? motive for freqmeat
strlet avoldanee bt noted as smggesting
® fh@ latter statement merits heearns© a similar attitude is rep
fleeted iaHost asks th® Parson t© tell a
!* fEplBBtg 1166)6
Medieval 'disemssions of si .|t as ©me ©f the by^gro due ts ©f several ©f the Seven
Simso It is .dSsemssed as aaaspeot @f Pride la gmrs®r M'andl 9 'Gotten GahM Mss 0 $ II9 B76Q9=p27615 9 p® Ilf- '(So So To So I e It is depleted as a In Piers Plowman« Go Passms Til9 5619 p„ Ilf edition)o Ghameer0s Parson eonsiders it as a phase of anger ©r ire (Par# T$ !®f)6
Gited by Bmrge'ss Johnsom9 Lest Art of Profanity, Po If® (Original seuree net available!^-
G0 Go Qonlton^ Ghamper and His Englanda p0 Mlo
11
replies? "What ey@2
24
;h the mam s© syafmlly t© swere?w-the Host retorts9°© Is the nyado' CllfS)ihes us somwhat6
s the drifthe mat pr<@©! Is the gr©t@
if, 1181=1185)A similar seBtlmemt is eeheed la fhe Book ©f Margery
largery isMi
als# -swear ®i3aay am a©he xulde tie them f©r their swearing
I weld® setswerym as d@m f@r al g@©t ©f iris w@rId®I" la
elear herself ©fto ms©©f heresyo
©f the word f8l@llere4? Is. reseated hy WoWo Stoat In The Works of Geoffrey ihameer a
vTj 1 6 8 , ■ ‘ ‘ ■ ' ' . ■■■■' : r 1 'This sp©e©h has heem yarlemsly attrlhmted t# the
Ire, SmEH©a@r, and Shlpmamo A more recent study of the ®f the speaker Is that hy B0 Jolhiting, w>8y My
SoBo Me@©h9. ©do 1 The Book of Ihldo A po 124o
sery Kemp© fl po1240
S4n@e the tsys or tf£©Xlayd®. was» * neeessary t© ©xamim©ir to &@< i la the English Works @f
@©s@eraeS with the prevaleae® of saeh si,f was especially
among the elerks wh© SI4
met reprove servants wh© swore in 'their presence.
15
the erth@dox elergpnen. ©ited tom's
©f eaths 9 t hy @wst aIs# eensured @f the pseyalenee ©f swifor a Lellard must he taken with reservation<, 3Eowev@r's
aAdditional
In the manymedieval oaths is reeorded
ortptlom @f sims was @m auriemlar @@mfessS
detailed ©aumeration and des= "beoams© of the esphasis ©hurtho fhis faet is
B'6 -Orleans9 Somme to alomt 18f§9 la theSins9 namely9
M smanere of aymaes and to ai;
hut h© know©: h©makepe hym fro
|s regarded as a slm.of and 19
(8 ) habitual they ©amnot sped
lord to witness© as
s divided into five without reason about S hi
is I and his m©drs
FraneiSg eddi The Book of, 71 ©es and Virtues,
f M s list is expressions eurreat in them were eonsldered mor
of the variety of prefane 8 time o Hatwally some of
sinfml than others8 but there the gravity of eertaim
However 9 the dismemberingasseverations at a given Oaths bore the brent of the condemnations G
dissmssion. of
5S
the
mes or hi .woendeSfl
mn, mBrenne denoenees oaths by the blood8 feet
$&L <5 9 P O o
irt Mi ________ Po gfg.rankedas the Worst offense and
literature must be examined for om aetmalig the
L»'8;. P.°of Tiees and. Tirtues states that smek
>ei breke none ef his bones9 but snehe swerers bewen hym-as smal© or smaller fan men do# a swyn in a by.eheri©3 M •P» @ 8 0
16
€® reports that Saint Louis of Franeepunished all his suhjeets wh© spoke- lightly of ®od andthe ■blessed’ Virgin's in® @f these punishments @@msist@d ©ftying a swearer to a ladder with a pig9s gut and hasletaround his neek in sueh a manner as to reaeh his n©s®dFurthermore9 the saintly king frequently exalaimed, “Iwould ©onsent to he "branded with a hot iron ©m eondition
"S8that all. pro fame ©a ths. were .removed out of my r@alm0®% ® Goodman ©f Paris left instrustions with his
young wife .regarding- swearingo- His wife was supposed t@ eenfess her falling t© reprove servants for their swear** ingo She was also to ©onfess inciting others to swear
59with her amg®r@Reason and 0onseienee9 when personified in Piers
Plowman« also used various asseverations t© re=enforeetheir statementso Piers himself$ in a moment of indigonation at the pilgrims0 demanding the nature of his .rewardf@r eondmeting them S@ Truth3 swears on the peril of his
- . ' 4®soul and the Shrine #f Saint Thomas in one hreathq
. Another form ©f @ontemporary literature reflecting'
88 fean d© Joimvilleg “A Saintly Kings® The Portable Medieval leadera James Bruce Ross and Mary Martin - McLaughlins editcrs8 p». 5f6o
Eileen Power 9 @d» D The Goodman of Paris * p0 SI©». 4® Walter Wo- Skeat^ The Vision of William, eoneermlmgPiers the Piommnq ©0 Passms 1111 d SSO -SSls p0 185c '
17
the mse ef oaths is Theplaysc, The familiar Seeemd eoataiBS ap=?
twenty asseverations representing thetypes of oaths Indleated Is. the first ehapter ©41
The ©haraeters swear hy the deity as well as the members of ©hrist'p- ' Saint Thomas of Kent and Saint giphea* the first Shrlstian m are als# Invoked <,
4SHlsoellaneeas oath# saeh as why my hood18' are also im<
smeh villains as fain9 Herod9 and Hllat® depleted in other. plays of the ©yele* is In*? tens!fled through their path#$ Slnoe asseverations' ar® found freemen tly In - the mystery plays s whlmh are an at= tempt to aehleve' a - realist!@ presentation of Bihlioal lor©9 it is ehvious that swearing was a vital part #f medieval man8 s daily sp@©©h6'
That medieval men swore frequently has been definitely established by the various ©itati©ms.9 but sine© it has been stated In the introduetpry ehapter •Bat" the Prioress8s path has aroused am@h eomment9 the problem @f swearing
ival women cannot b© ignored* 6* Go Cotaltpa, is pn@ of Wright8s Latin gtorles stating that women
Gfo.po '5,
^ George Sngland9 edo 8 48The Second Stepherd8s Play8 L@y Flays (S. E 0 T0 So)9 p* 184» •
@@mf©ss©$’ t@ swear a© mere* She- signified her goodintentions to amend her language with her habitual oaths,®s® help-me God# and ,?by the blessed Virgin and all the
44 'saints o89 -
The Ameren Riwl® or The Ernie % written foranehoresses in the early part of- the
t the seventh whelp ©f Pride- la. bias, phemy and the nurse ©f this whelp is
onesoner mi# ener , nor eni
ihereho^The passage may be' ©©nsldered as one of the many detailed, descriptions©f sins neeessitated by an.emphasis on detailed and speoifi® confesslong and as sm©h9 does not ime
another seetlon of the treatlsthey should'®mor non® JinS» but# % if 3 ® slggem
4S® sum®.© swache wise 0 M This
elmrged directly ne warien ( emrse) $, • ne
pier @ik®flioh#g indicates
Life SBs 111Ibido, p» 87..James Horton9' edo 3 The Ameren Biwle 0 p<
that anekeresseB wer® mot i3H8mne to the haMto It is .safe to assume from these re fere nee s that medieval- women .were addieted to sweating along with the meno . .
The survey shows eonolusively that men and women lard## ■ their conversation with- oaths during tha Middle ■. Ages,, However$ literature as well as life offered Ghaueer a variety of asseverations9 for according to R 0LQ RiteM @ 9
"Boasting and the taking of high vows by knights o ^ "played its part in Freneh literature from he Peleringag® do gharlemagn# o n w a r d s s Thi s partIonian work containssu@h mild expressions 'as "par le,m. (Iti ■IBS) s "par men
; - " ■ " ' . ; ■ ■ ■ m / : i .nhief^-Clo 41). g and'"par ma feitvfl* §©6) d '- .Ghameer^s familiarity with the swearing hahits of his
own Hhgland^ the.anti-swearing tirades of the clergy% and the. asseverations in Iren eh roman ees |s ref lee ted in hi s . Ganterhury Tales 6 His ©Wn Pardoner echoes some - of the ■ " • ■ prevalent attitudes when he lists such dismembering oaths as, "by G-oddes preeioms hert@;"-|Pafdf ©11) s' and ;;another -by a relio, "the'blood of Grist that is in Hayles"(lardf8©IS) He sites the Biblical sources 9 Matthew3 Jeremiah8 and the second commandment (PardT3 ©#4?@#9@ ©42)9 underlying all medieval eondemnation ©f the si®4, ; ' .
^ B 0 I,0 Bitehle s edo 8 The Bujok of Alexander3poXxxlx. ^ Edmard Eosehwitgs'' ed9 ? Karls des Grossen Beise
naoh 'Jerusalem und Gonstantinopelo
s©
©harnesses Parson also eltes the Biblical references. He, too, deplores the dismembering oaths and associates the verbal dismembering with ©hrist's aetnal physical suffering at the .hands of the Jews, He coincides ■with Bobert
4:9Manning ?s contention that the gentry swore the most (Parsl, 6©1)o ' Habitual swearing and swearing without de^ liberation are also condemned in his discourse (Parsf, 601- 605), Enchanters and necromancers, who use God$s name in their chants and spells, are also censured (Parsf 6©5-609)<, fhe Parson9s discussion of swearing is included under Ire0
Seyeral oaths in Tale of Thopas cited in the following; chapter attest to ©haucerfs acquaintance with the conventional asseverations in romances such as Bevis of Hamtoun and Q-uy of Warwi ck^
.Shauceris awareness of medieval attitudes and practices relative to swearing is reflected throughout the Canterbury Tales, He was not original in adapting these expressions to serious literary productions, He had a profusion of oaths at his dlsposal3 which placed a premium on selection for literary effect, especially for the subtleties of character portrayal, The next chapter presents a careful analysis of the oaths In Canterbury Tales
# Mannyng, opo cite, p0 260
to ascertain ©hanoer’s a^ilitj to select those asseverations which would enhance his art*
GHAPfEB III
MALYSIS OF THE OATHS IN THE GAMTEBBraY TALES ;
• ' . I . • O a t h s W She; Betty' ■ .
- AsseyeratiGns hy the deityeonstitute the bulk of prof she ©jaemlatleas la Canterbury Tales a A glance at the appehdix ©f this study reyeals that expressions such as ®by SSdf? and MGod woot” are interspersed throughout the speeches' of the pilgrims and the characters of the tales® These exclamations are familiar to the modern reader 8 as they are: still ©mrrent» H©wever> - they possess little if any, emotional force except in exceptional sitmaf ionso For ., exampleg.a vigorous "by God” from a'man whose speech is. . reiat1vely free from sueh expressions retains considerable emotional impact® . In all probability a similar condition existed as early.,as Ghaueer 9 s' day® - Such a '.situation ‘ . obviously Is not conducive to a selection of these oaths for literary, effect other than realism or naturalism^■ ; ■ Starr also . Concedes; that these oaths had lost, most : of their intensity by Ghaueer "s timeu However $, he be= li.eve.s that -emotional emphasis ' could be ■ obtained by ; elaborating an asseveration such as "by God" with Mabove"
gr F,©f kynde«” This contention is valid in a few staneasg as in the naveler9s ..sweating Sod ' and bj th® hooly saerement M Ci>a2?dTs 757) 0 How©vang a iaor© oarefml : examination shows that sueh is not always the ease3 and . that rhyme rather than emphasis is thefunction of some ofthe appended .or’'©lahorated oaths.e Pertelote 3 who Is disappointed in her mate % reaction to a had dreaai 'tells
.las-Io i'g for 9 ■ by that. Sod ahov©hah y© lost mya hert© and al my love
gravity ff the situation justifies a stronger ©x^•elamatIon than the simple "hy Gods w hut the. Intensity-ofthe elahoration is deereased hy the following lines inthe same speech: ' '
esihy that Sod ahov©| . '■■ How dorst® ye seynfor- ,siEmes 'tanto. youre loveThat any thyng myghte make yow aferdf (HPTgEf1^-2919)
If the same "above" and i,Xov@M rhyme combination were',limited to Pertelote'9:s speeeh9 It could be argued-, that /'she habitually resorted- to this expression whenever- hermate exhibited signs, of ,e@wardie©.6. . But Borigen and;Aurelius also'.use the oath in crucial situations (PranklTy
1921)$ the rhyme=word again being "love o0 Theseeitatlons indieat© that rhyme instead of emphasis is thechief Impertane© of the elaborated oathso
84
A e ©ath ©f the monk and- the mer@hant9s wife "by God ■ and by. this porthbS’S” C;ih5? 135) reflects the. medieval praetiee ©f strengthening an asseveration by eomblnlng@©a*8 name with something saered, sneh as a book. A
51 . ' .similar ineident Is described in the Man of Law!s .'Pale .where the knight swears on the gospels that ©onstaneekilled a woman {666=867)»
• . 58 ■ .; . fhe Ireneb etmivalent "pardee?8 also occurs fr©=thently In the Canterbury fales a If the expression werelimited to sueh eharaeters as Virginia of the Physielan8sfale s, if ."might be ©onsldered 'a euphemism for "by #od." ,However9 It is also found In the conversations of tbs-Host and of the merehant9 s wife t whose swearing voeabu*-larles . are- far from refined or given to . euphemisms« Sine©Aliee of Hath uses both fomas frequentlyg her usage willbe analyzed to diseovef any diff©renee In eonnotatlono
"Hardee" may be eorisidered a rhyme word in the line .Ye weot wel Vhat I meen® of thi s 9 pardeel (?/BProlg300)
32, ISSfe of Margery Eempe%■" p." 67g relates that a priest "swoor many a g-ref othe 9 & be Pp® boke In hys harid9bat soh© was as fals as s©he mygth be." ' -
92 • ,The Oxford Hngllsh Dictionary, Yll« 47©s defines..It as "a - form of am oaths By Q-odl" Among the various citations is one from Hamlet». Ill, 8 ii 3©5
for if the King.like not the come die 8 Why then belike he likes it not per die.
gmes expression as--aa affirmation of various mat«teas :r@¥@aled in her 'boasting dis.enssl©n of her five -hmsbamSs in these passages r ; /
Jt.is my good as wel as thyn^ pardee1 (510)1- -Me shal have never the- lass© 1-Sght9, pardee I |
fhat I was betem for a hookg pardeeS (7isf IPardeep we wemmen konme no thyag h@le0
Fomn of her ?tl3y(iod8s?9 are also evoked by recollections ofher .marital-lifei.'i :1 l:.. ;; -Te he to hlame? by Godi I sey yowsooth- / ; :By GodS In erthe I was his purgaterle
. ■ By Godl he smoot me ones1 :i ■' By Godl If wommen' haddeAfter a lengthy:
• A hal by Godg I have me tale:: . - ; : §5 - ; ' . : - ' - -1 ■Allee: mses;"by'God”,. to confirm the more sensational as
pects of her; domestic revelations "as indicated In line■48®6 Ghauoer gives the exclamation greater intensify in three instances by placing it at the beginning of the line, A similar effect is achieved by placing !?pardeew in the same 'positi©n<,/ The distinction between the two expressions is. not - too"great s but intensity is heightened by having either ©he'precede rather than follow the statemento /
The expression MGod weotf? ranks, second in. number of . oaths in this division6 Basically it is not an oath in
Wife?s elaborated or expanded ©aths ^by God .above^ ilBl’rol 207) shows the same peeuliarlty as thosi previously mentioned in that It also rhymes with t?love«” Evidently this was _,a favorite- rhyme scheme - with Ghaue©r0
26
. ' - 14 •Starr9 ©stlmtiomg W t it is @©msMer©<3. @m© im tMs©ssay a@eordimg t© the ert teriea siappli©d by Shameer ?.s
55 . ,However 9' it had evidently met a similar fate
Sod9M for in most instanees it Is rarely .a mild af«fir ration o Iron. the Parson ezolaimsg
fed woot 9 rym hold# I M t 11 tel bettre (ParsProl544) o
as the Blerk of ©sf@rd9. was na @ m j M g ® in moral yirtu-s l8 • Prndenee8 and
ahont using # e expression * May* however 9 seeks t© gain aredenee for' an ©mtright lie % t & the affirmation fMerehf 9 2575) 0
ts©@d forbed®'9 ©eemrs eighteen times inTales» Its variant "©ed shilte59 is used more sparinglyc
fed shild© that h® -deyde sodeyaly (HiIlf9 3427) 9 strong emotlea'g for sadden death was one of the
terrors- of medieval mam 6 MS@d for bed® 0 |s also employed in eomjumotiom with ©onditlonal statements9 sm-eh as the erewi9s "For if it @0 bifall® 9 as ©o'd forbade0 (Gif 9136) 0 It Is a favorite expression ©f the ©onnlving eharaofers ©f the Shipman9s Tale* as of the false ©anon In Ganon9s
Starrs ©g0 ©1*69 p 0 4855 Qf6 p 0
3o6g ante.
Y©Qmaa.1) s fale.o- la the' latter ins tanee 8 the eanon dellber^ ately mses the phrase to assure the priest that he has the highest eoneept. ®f troth ('1044=1©46)- 0 Ghauoer evidently asseeiat@4 the asseveratlorn with serious matters or he . womlt not hare assigned, it to the oanon whose deeds r@=
®aths3..-*8for #od.#es sake68 and ”for ©oddes love968 are elosely relatedc Starrg In, his survey of the oaths fm all of .Ohamoerts works notes that etin fifty six eases 9for'
eia©oMes love8 appears either in the text ...- . 56 ■ . ■ , -, ; " .9f a nohleo^ ' . A eareful eemparison of these
asseverations, in the Ganterbury fales reveals an even :flh#r iistinftitno #er ©oddes sake-8 is used who are impatient9 such as Walter9s subjects.when
And taak a wyf3 for hyedegree, of .Impatience is reflected hy the eagerthe ianon.ls .Yeoman8s fale when he exclaimss
0 o nows sire-8- for Soddes sak©3 . '■ ihat shal I paytf telleth me 9 I prey© (1559=1558)6 .
Ar@ite9 en the other hand8 asks Palemon to take everythingin patience tof w Boddes love88 (Enf 3 1084) 0 The cityofficial employs the same expression when he asks theduped friar to'h© patient (Bumfi 3117)9 ©hauoer’s own
38
request c, nfoT geddes 1©t©$ lemetl mat I safe/ Of yvel ©ntent@t? (-MillProl$ 51?2} 8 als© laeks the exigenoy of . :■®f©x Goddes sak@#w Persuasion is the ooamon denominator #f "both forms3 M t through the finer distinction Ohaueer gave the ever patient Grl selda a "brief moment of impatience when' ah© asks the servants t@ hurry3 Mf©r Goddes aake$v .
i ;;' :Throughout the.Ganterhury fales either expression is
used im rather serious ©Ireumstaneesl but Ghaueer eoiild. . adapt It ©ffeetively-to a more humorous situati©n.9 as ' showm in the Hunis,Priest^s Taleo Pertelote charges her mat© g "For Goddes - love s as - taak some laxatyf ” (2f43) 0; - After a metieulous: deserlption, of the most effective ia^ grsdlents of. a laxative9 she adds, '"leryet mat thls8 for- Goddes ©wen© love 1,8 (295.4) e This as s eve rati on 8 usually associated with weightier issues , adds to the m©ek=h@r©£© quality of the- beast up lev <
. The concept of salvation.also figures in the, oaths by . the deity* To swear - by en©? s sal vat ion 9. or hope of it p. was considered a serious asseverations as is indicated by t W words of one medieval author i "For whan he seip, 5as : Sod me save9 9 » ® o' .and he lyaes he dob hym out of pe
: - - . ■ m - '
( help- and b@ kepyng of Go do" . Walter and Grl selda iGlTj i©ii 1064) re-affirm .fidelity to their .marriage vows
: .' Francis9 ©do 9: The • Book of Tices and Virtues <, p» 65=,
29
W$ tli this asseverationo For Nicholas -and the merehant of the Shifman8s Tale it serves as am afterthought; la |iretestati©ns to womeas The friar who- galls ©a the. si eh ' ■ Thomas caps his flattery of the wife with this oath (SumT9 1809} o Absalon (MillTg 5795) uses it to ©over am , outright lie mhea he swear s. he, is bringing Alisoun a ring ' but is aetmally earryiag a h©t iroxu 0n ©eeasiom the .oath .* ©#ours, .at the ©mt ©f the: lime§ ami at times it may be. a
' ' SB . . . . . .
mere"rhyme w©r4'o ' However s when Ghaueer is utilising• the highest potential of the ©ath9 he ®la@es it at the begimaimg ©f the lime so that I t o aim© t possibly be mis= taken as a, rhyme w©rd6 Thus when the friar is begging V ; memey from ,Womas 9 he tells the latter I-.. . ‘ .
;,For whos© w©l# us fr© .this world birev©8 , ; . :.Bo - Sol me save 9 Thomas> by youre lev© ; ' :
■ r He wold© birev® out of this world the some (SumTj,2111-=
The friar? who has already' revealed his tmplieitys. stakes his eternal salvatloi. ©a am ©bvieus exaggeration in ©rdez "to obtain money from Thomas# The solemm ©ath. adds a deft stroke t© the portrait of the self^satirizing friaro •
^ ;.Th© .Wife8s ...elaborated ®ath9 "For God so wys be my savaeioum" fWiFrolj 621} is too ornate for a frank woman ami lacks emotional forcee • The rhyme m r d 9 "dlsereoiounj6 probably governed the phraseelogyo •
se
fhe ea$yes9 4 @n n©©d help© m® so® ©eeurs fifteen 'time;in fanteghmpf Tales 6 Its signifieane© is elosely t© the medern oath ??so help me G-©i® used in the and ©m selemn oseasionsg It needs little explanation as
S@d t© a@t as a jndge ©r' an Starr states that the form
m?,§©d help© me sofi is favered hy the nebilityo -Areit© (Kn$9 1189) illustrates this tendemeya The Wife ©f Bath finds h©th ferms helpful in her e©arse expos© ©f her
m? She Is almost gloating when she As help me G©d9 I
596g and S05o lations w|th
1 made hem swynk® {WBProl9810=211)0 a in the same vein in lines 42$5, when she relates her marital re^ .
9 whom she really love S. 9 she varies as she stales| ■ ,
n@©d help© m© so., 1 was t© hym as hynd#n(WBPrel9 835) as any wife from Denmark to India? in the Canterbury Tales exhibits theby Starr9 it is favored by ©haraeters l|k@ Sriseyde in Chaueer9@ other works» Hen@@ 9 Chaueer may have seleeted this particular form to indioate that the ..Wife'’s senti«?
@r
9 p? 41
51
oathg :$$ln God®s name 9 w eomes el©s@2? to a ploms thaa t@ profanity0 ApproprSatelys; i t, is used
hy the Knights ©f whom Shane©r sayss" He neve re yet no vSleynys. ne.
in al his lyf mnto n©: maneri the '1 ii®an« as Hp B c >- that >
• - ; . V ' : >' ■■■■• ' v ■ m :Knight did net talk like a person of low birth; henoe
: , : . '■ ■ ' • . - ■ ■■ ■ ' ' ' : ■■ ■■ . " V ’ ' .i: ' 'swearing9 whieh was eoxnmon t© all.ranks of soeiety i prob^ably womli net be/in©Inded,in the description of his '
Virginia nses the expression when-she. resignsand tells;her father9 .- “Booth with yomr, :
'©hlldg/yomr wyl9 a ©oddes name0 (3?hTg 250) „ The Manciplefdame^ who'was serionsly ooneeraed abomt good speeehy. ©harges: her song- - “Thenk #n the erewe 9 a Soddes name I “
expressiong' “Lord ,81 listed by the #zf©rd English Bietlonary as-a derivative from formal in vocations. 9 appears seldom in the ©anterbwy Tales o Alice of Bath
lordl ■ th©:. peyne li did# hem and the wof! - ; ' 1
-584)9 When she recalls the misery she inflicted 'Upon her husbands6 " She uses “Lord Grist8’ {WBPr©ls 469) when .she remembers her wild youths fhe third reveler- ;exclaims. s ti0 when v he realizes the
f®- Ho Bo Hinckley, -Hotes- on Chaucer,. p 0 ©» % Vole VI9 .p6:' 445# : ' - V • '
p@t©mtial£ti@s in tk@ goll if W is smeeessfnl in killing tk® other revelers guardleg the treasure0 . Ghaueer hlm» s@lf reserves the asseveration fer a moment ©f smrprise
. 4 brief glanoe at the tahnlatien in the appendix im= dieates.that medieval swearers were- hesitant about
estimation at the name ©f Jesus $name 9 ;o @ >. under hmvem® graven q®w ® be savedg? that Is t© s@;
name @f Jhesm 0His name is^ ©f ©ourse'g .Implied la all the dismembering ©athSg In alius ion. to his bodily suffering and death 6 The asseverations by Jesus are @#nfined to the ©©arse o,har<f aeterss' the @arp@nt@r9 Alls.©ua9 and Abs@l@n ©f the Millergs ,.Tal@0 B© also with the word ^Ghrl st s 18 whieh8 unlike toJ e s W 5
is used In several dismembering ©aths0" The smith (1E11T9 rts OBtg <fSy3 Grisfes feo&" Thomas in the
'v s Tale and t M false eanon in the Ganon9 sTale als@ invoke the name ©f Ohristo One may infer from this evidene® that medieval swearers were not at ease in Invoking Jesus Ghrlst9 their final hope ©f salvation^
The appendix lists several ©ther asseverations Wnleh have little signifieanee other than illustrating the eon^
that swearing was eonrnion in infernal'medieval
H o Ebie Mspemteerlag ©aths . fhe dismemWrimg ©aths are @l#sely relatsi. to the
eategorys M t tlie aMndanee ©f imd|.ev8.1 litera®these ©aths warrants a separate diseussion0
Furthermore5 Ghana©r himself foomses speeial attentloa ,om them hy having the Parson rebuke Harry Bailey for saying i8by GQ<Mes bones»" These affirmations merited the bulk #f ©©nsmr© and disapproval beeause thay were closely'ass©= oSated with the aetnal suffering and dying ©fGhristo -- •However i the ■swearers of Canterbury Tales seldom ham© ••- '•.Shrlst directly*■ but use the word reG©dM- insteado ;:.The . >earpenter (HillT-8 5508)9 the Cambridge students ■ John and v 'Allan (BvT3 4984$ 4265) 8 and the Oook (OkPml 4527) are. ’
four using Shrist^s name in. a dismembering oatho ,s is to be expeet©ds for they eertainly did mot have
a 9spi@@d e©ns©iene©oM The earpenter'invokes- the blood - ©f Oh#st 8 which was one of the most serious oaths0 fh©Siller swears wby armes8 and by blood8 and bones” ■ -. ICSillProl8 5125) that he will tell a. tale*' The Host;: was "booId of: Mswhen he swears:..h: - ■'
s , ,$ also implies the mam© of ChristSB *" * •and by blood” (Pardint 8 288),@
^ Skeat $ @p#' bit o Po 884s. indicates that there is a' conflict- regarding tha oath by the nalls0 Some claim that th#: nails which fastened :Christ to the cross were invoked8 while., others are equally convinced that Hi s. own nails were
"■meant-* After citing evidence for both sides-# Skeat ©on= ©Imdesg strongly"suspect that swearers did not stop t© think8 n#r were they at all particular- as to the sense in ,which the words might be used*" '
m
lr©Biea;l-ly9 it is the swearing Host who mses the euphemism eoklees 'bon©s,,' (MaiiePi®l9 S) anS (ParsPr©l8 42| te 'aTOSc
God ilreetly with, a dismemberimg ©athe
©£ the Miller9sealiherg Ghanoer assigns one sm@h oath to /himself when the Host stops him of the fhtpas rhyme „ .His asseverations, ,?hy Goddes sweete pyne9M is teehnieally an impliflf dismembering ©ath in. that/: It merely reflects the e.enseqnemees #f the suffering ©f Ghrist 9 " 4s Gh.aucer here asswes a role quite alien to his aetual eensplenohs:'w|th: this, oath/ih that it "l ©h a;'Similar footing ‘with'..the Host , and others of that type, fhis ©ath Is appropriate: t© an ignoramuss the r©l@ asswed hy; Shaneer is, telling the only rhyme he ^lerned long© agooae " ■ y ' " V ' , . . , " 1.
§eoasi©hally:9 ShaneerAiaade' an effort .|© mateh thereferenee to: Ghrist is ■ suf fe ring ml th the si tna# •
emherlng ©atho . lirasj Harry" Bailey8s ' and by, blood'8 sums up his reaction to: the
ihihhyinnoeent blood was.shedj,' an t::of the Passloho : " . : ; ‘ :
fhauoer was evidently fully aware of;the gravity of "these ©athsv for" he Is • espec'i ally consistent in assl them f# characters who were not fastidioms Sn their Some of the expressions are obviously rhyme words9 but
.jeveii -la WSs eonn@eti©n9 he is careful net t© ascribe .eS©dd.es araes two?? to a character - like the (31©rk<»
: IXX o Oaths by the Saints \ \ ' -
Medieval man also had recourse to invoking the salats im his "©aths# Various factors were' conducive to . this praes?. tl©eo ©riginally invoking the saints was limited to mo«= meats of - prayer and 'd@votl©n$ but. this habit was easily- ./'■ ia©©rp©rated. |at© prefane speeeho furthermore 9 the -remaias of saints endowed with miraculous powers at various shrines attracted manj medieval'pilgrims 6 Swearing by saints seems matmral for : the nine and/twentv ©anterbury .pilgrinis8 whose unifying bond, was the' coitmoa goalg the shrine of Thomas a Beekete ' / o /: :i:- : t '-r ■■
Seholars -are 'aware that Shaucer assigned an. oath by a saint to ‘•fit: a character or situation o ; However 0. aseer#tainiag the ezact reference to a saint for a specific ©ath: '-:V • •:- '■ v . : 63 ■- v •Is not always easv-o . Although Mro Tatlosk . and - " : .• ' ' . 64 : ' ''■li.xl/' V : . ' ; ■ ' ,Erv Bowling have shWa #at Chaucer was familiar withjaeebus de Voragih©!® Legenda Aureaa it is,highly probablethat Chaucer based seme of his allusions to ■saints on
, John So Fo Tatloek9 "Chancer and the Legenda Aurea Modern Language totes .ZLV- f w l H W ) 8; .
: &4: George Ho Cowlingi Chaueer« p. 1760
aeoetmts aot reeorSei. in th@ various extant legends andbiographies and ©m oral tradition* fhe many ©omjeetures©n the signifieanee- @f the Prioresses Rgr©ttest@ ©oth byStint© Loy** indieat© that matohing the speeifie aspeet ofthe salnt^s Ilf© with the ©haraeter or situation Is netwithout dlfflenity®
The invocation of Saint hoy flley ©r Eligims) Is not©onfined to the Prioress alone* The carter also invokes-him (IrT 1564) ® . Mr* Bowes in his study ©f the. oath hastreated ©a©h r©f©r@n©© 'separately8 for he believes thatea©h•asseveration alludes to a different faset #f !l@y$spersonality* Bowes eoneludes that the Prioress invokedthe artist-saimt [email protected] he represented ,?all that tte
65Prioress either was or flp©yned hire$ to be® 45 Eloy asa former goldsmith m@. doubt fashioned breoohes similar tothat of.'the Prioress* H© was also a ©©urtler g another as«=pe@t appealing t© a woman uti© took pains to imitate themanners of eourt * ©n-the'other hands Saint Boy would alsobe a favor it© of oarters s for several medieval legends
6 6depiet him as shoeing horses*
Miss Hammond8 hewevar j attempts to reeoneile the allusions to Illgimso She cites Lydgat©9s Virtu© of the.
...®® John Is Bowes9 ’’The Prioress9© Oath,* Romani© R®« view V (0 0 to her *>Be © ember 1914')> 5S©»
Mass.:tea Seyat ley® your© lournay sohall preserve Hers n^r. ©art age l at day s eh all not mysehea©;
whieh implies that Saint hoy was eensidered the patron•: ;. . .
saint ©f travelers® The explanation as. applied to thePrioresses oath is strainedg forChaueer in his desorip=tion ff. the Prioress was more eoneerned with her as awoman than as a pllgrimo Ben jamin ?/alnwright 9 usingLowese study as a hasis s reaches the eonelusion that thePrioress, unoonscionsly had a very hwan af feet ion for theartist^saint as his ^superb physique and handsome faee6’fas©imated her^ . ' :
The commentators have evidently overlooked that. s.ection of the Golden Legend whieh deserihes Saint Loy',sadministering alms to beggarsa after washing and de-lous?: 6.9;" - :ving themo This fastidious habit may have attracted the-Prioressg who wiped nhir over-lipp© so ©lene/ That in M r.©oppe therlwas no ferthyng s©ne/ Of gre©©$i ■ (G©nProl8 If if
■Eleanor Hammond 9 "Two Ghaueer ©raees," Modern 1 Hotes; Z i p (February 1907)9 51•
Benjamin Walnwright9 "©haueer9® Prioress Again: An Interpretive !©t@s" Modern Language Motes», ZLT1H (January 1955) 9 fSs ■- .•
William ©axton. The ©olden Legend„ Ills S@4e
•Sai.Et Thomas ©f Kent s or Thomas a Beeketg was also in= Y©k@(| |e the Qanterbury Tales o He was the patron saint of the si©k§ ami his shrine was famoms for its miraenlons emzeso However9 he was mot consistently invoked in his
as- -a h@aler by the ©aaterbury pilgrims 8 althoughhis ahrln© imygratitnde for his help: . - 7# ; ; :' . ■ ■■ • ■
Wwham that they'Were sekeoM The Hiller in Indirect :diseoarse';. relates-that Alisouns the carpenter9 s wife $^Swoor ■ hir ■ athj. - by selnt Thomas of Kent/ That she wolbeen at his eommandementw (MillT8 5291^5892} 8 namely8 atthe command ©f her lover § Nicholas» A stanza from thetranslation ©£ la. Sell©'lame. Sans fierei Implies that..... .. . -- ■ 71. . .-swearing by the saints was common among lovers, Ohaueervmay have had, referene© t#. this habit and selected.Saint Thomas of Kent only because of rhyme o
Sfweveri a Saint Thomas without additional Identification Invoked by the carpenter during the ”illness” of his elerk9; N|eholhs: (MillT9 3425s MSI) 9 is- no doubt the
Hmrtel Bowdens A Commentary on the. 6-eneral Prologue 9 po observes that Thomas was credited with other miracles besides healingo Some invoked him whenever they had lost
and loveKp lo. Fnraivallp ed<> 9 Political9 __p®; 94:j, states that God and the saints
oaths lovers swear by them that theylamgh at all ' be steadfast6
m
Saint #homa# ©f Kent6 : The carpenter also Galls ©n Saint Fr3rS.esWa©9-.:a l©©al saint g in ©onneotion with the .^illness suggesting that she tso had been endowed, with healing • ability« 'Evidence of sueh power still exists In the leaves • with medieinal properties woven among the earvingsof her eathedral'at Oxford9 which is reeonstrueted aeeording te- the design ©f her original thirteenth ©enturj ediflee0 . '
. S a i n t . . I n d i a n @r.:;the'dembtlng Thomas @ als#\ has a plaee;in the ejaenlations-by the saints6 The M@r? ehant g dwlsg" M s i.lseonf’se ©n the woes of
ges the andiene©: ; . • .Assay© whose wole and he shal f-pid©That 1 seye s©oth9 hy. Seint Thomas of Ynde (MerehProlj,
J ; . ; . . 1SB8=©f Bath :also-Snvohes' this saint when she ©xelaims:
VM©w w@l ,1 seye yon sootha hy 8elnt Thomasee (WBPr@l9 666) 6 An -©ath by a doubter attesting .to the trmth ©f a statement Indieates a ©ertain.amount of doubt in the speaker's mind® |a the ■ Merchant's asseveration9 the word t*YndeM may als® suggest the idea "unto the, ends©f the earth *- ” for „ Indi a was - ©©nsldered ©n© .of the remote plaees®
Serveys$.the,::smitiai^lnv©kes .Saint. W©te (Heot) 8 a. ; relative of King Alfred (MillT 3770)6 The Invocation oan= not be disposed as a rhyme ward; as it o©ews in the . -
:fg;Ro H 0 01ines ,$F©ur Qhaneer Saints ModernRotesg EX flovember 194E)8 480o
of- the line Q Barlng-=Oould5 s aecount of the .saint/e life relates that after thieves had stolen his ©x@na red deer came from the forest -and allowed themselves to he used for ploying* The legend seems t© have little hearing on the oath ©f the smith* Glara Clement eites a tmotation whleh smggests tiat the: saint .was at all.times. h ;fs -; : :tempemte and eaim* ; Absalons * o m Gerveys is address^ . ing9 was the very opposite when he asked for.a hot iron*
Johnj a Northumbrian student^ invokes the famous .Saint Guthbert of .Eorthumh#a (RvTg4187h* Hiss' Glin© believes* however8 that the asseveration was chosen f@r another, reason* namelj‘ to suggest to - the mlller* the speaker9s thieving host * that hospitality Is rewarded* \ ■ for Saint Guthhert ©nee entertained angels unawares and .had, food miraculously supplied to himo . ThisIs, valid in view of the ending of - the tale s in whieh miller suffered because of his poor hospitality*
The brothers James arid John figured prominently in
So Baring-Goulds, The Lives of t W Saints 9 VHI|6970Glara Clement * A Handbook of Christian Symbols, and
es of the Saints as Illustrated in Art9 p> gS6B
Cline * ope ©It o * p.*; 48S».''
41
tk® asse-rerations of tl®. Gante rbury groups Saint James g the first, mrtjred diselple9 was widely kmomig judging from the mamy extant legendsB His body supposedly rests at GaBipo= stella8 a -far©rite. shrin® of ms di©val pilgrims0 Jtis mira®m=Ions powers inereased wlth time 9 and the Golden Legend,: ■. : . V\ - '" ■ ; i: ; 9@ 'reeords great miraeles performed by him as late' as- 1258oThese miraeles performed-by him.have ©me pattern, namely^the'saint9s-resemingVpeople' from dir© ealamityl He wasespeeially e©meermed. with th© welfare ■•©if pilgrims vlsitinghis shrinej and he was the patron saint of. pllgrimsj, .as
the .following line t :' - •: - : ' : ■ : - 1 ' 77pms saint X@m© p© holi© mani is pilegrim half pere»are only two remote refleetions of the saint0s @apa-:
elty as a patron of pilgrims in Canterbury Tales* Thesnmmoner9 s greeting the devil r 7Wel be we raet 9 by .God andby S.eint. Jamet (I’riTg 1443) 8 as they meet on their travelsmay be an, alimsion to the patron of .pilgrimsP Alioe ofBath raves and rants by this saint In a moment of-domestiewrath {WBBrols 1512)s but her asseveration earn hardly havebeen prempted by a pilgrimage she had made to Gompostella$
76
Garl H©rstmann9 edo g, 1 P 517 3 ■. p © 45 ©
: 43.V;
toe m@ak^s exclamation^ "by G-ofl and by se£nt Jametf (;S3aTs78 " : , . ■ • / ■■ ■■ : : - v , ' , .y. .
' la moet likely a • rhyme woreU '" -: .Sainf..lols the iTange.^tst is also Invoked by the pll^g ;m.aBallf jointly with- deip.. He wonld naturally be a
of medieval mas> for Christ left Els mother in 'of this' diaolple when He was. dying on the erosso.
His do©trine of the inearnati©n8 ^In the beginning was. the -wordg was regarded wi th peouliar reverence and is mention":ed by Chamteeleer (EPT5 ,S163) 0 Furth@mor@ g God revealed . /.;th®: bliss of the heavenly Jerusalem to Saint John? How® :eyeyg It is dlffiemlt to asoertalm speeifie referendes to .■his ilf® ©r attribmtes in moat :©f'the oaths in the . •Canterbury Tales 0 Twos (SumT8 2251) and (PardT, 752). s have ;the rhyme word .w:an©n^ In eommona The Pardoner 8s asseveration■ ■ . o. «. 6. by God •and .by ‘ saint' Johni .' . ... - : .. ;; - '
- %e been a noble preehour in this eas {WBProlg 164=165)may refer to':John the Baptist rather than John the beloveddls©ipi@g for. the .reputation of John the Baptist as,a great •-preaeher wasyof ©ours©' - established long before Ghauoer8 s'-e.ra .i However 9 the Golden sermon attributed-to .Saint John
d contains' exoerpts from a -y ’ 79 % ' ’ ■
78
©hose this the.raising of
The ' association of-8t . James with God is based on. One of them being the fact thatGhrist
along with John and Peter to witness the dead as, .well as
ppl 165^
43
allusi©B is well direeted. at the Wife’s long pream"bl9 s and the audlen@e no doubt•eaught the irony0 Harry Bailey’s asseveration by this saint may serve as an Introduction to Ms disemssien ©f mutability (Mhlnt§ 18) as Saint John’s Apooalypse emphasizes the absence of mutability in heaven6
The Wife’s invoeation of SalntJoee in this description of one ©f her husbands a ' .• V:;'
But he was qults by God and by Saint 2 •" . ' 'Trjiade; him of the same mode a eroee (iBPrel*, 485-484)suggests' that the asseveration may have been determined by rhyme« .The biography ©f th© saint eontalns n© striking detail whi.oh. warrants the Wife’s- Invoking him0 Skeat comments thatthe site of his In France was familiar
; V - 1 . ' .. 1 ■; .i®: < ; - •.t@: Ihglishmen during the period of Edward. Ill t,observes that Ghaueer may have taken a for the
t from Le. Testament of Jean de Meung In which the- T - V , . . I : 81 . ; I
words s .’’Sir .Joe©.? and r@roe©M ©©cur6 •• Peter is name was also Included in tlB
©f medieval oathse This asseveration iiffers from the.©thers by the saints in Siat it is a single exclamation9
SS .. ■■ : ■ : : . i : ; ■’’Peter!}} The Summener (FrT 9 .1332) .y the Canon8 s Yeoman
. Skeat 9 opo ei.tos yfl 5S» . ’ ■
- ; ■ ....
' Skeat 9 ed, 6 p. Piers the Plowmen a II $ 1 ©2 S states that Pope Ihhocent lil als® swore by Saint'Peter<5.
44
(OlPrblg ©61)$ the two sweeping females 9 the Wife of lath (llProls, .44©) and. the merehantvs wife {Shff 214) § ms©• the exppessioSo Shameer evidently associated It with eommom .©r middl© class ©mtspoken indivldmlSo The oath may have heen a reference to Peter*© hlmntness in heing the first one to speak whenever the other eleven disciples were, silent/ For example s he is the first one to asks "Is it1?:M after Christ is declaration that one of His disciples
' . ' - ■■■■ ■ '■ - -. - would he tray Hlm0 -' The Snmmoner Invokes "the sweet© seinte Anne” (FrTjlSlS),who was. popular. In this periods ©f course§ as the motherOf the Blessed Jirgin® However, "Anne" here merely fane*tions as a rhyme word for "panne0w .-: - .; ©4 - ' • - . " . • ::, • Saint,Ives ' invoked hy the friar (SumTs 1945) and themerchant (ShT@ 227) I'm. the phrase "and hy that lord thathlepid,1s Seint Yv©3" was probably selected on the basis of
■ rhyme* However8 Cline observes that the asseveration may
' . ' - . ' ‘ - ' . - : The lonspiracy (Towneley 0ycle)a 16 518% poBSlo®^"-H@blns@n, op*, cito % p0 85i9 suggests that thre#
saints by that name might have.- been familiar to fhaueer9s audiences St0 Ives of Huntingdonshirej, a mythical Persian bishop preaching in lagland during the seventh century| Yves j- the .patron saint of Brittanyi Ives s. bishop of Ghartres^ ' . ' . - ' - %, . Gllneft QPo clto& p* 4820 ■ . -
45
r©fer t®- iaint Ive ©f Ghartreg in the Shlpmaa9 s Tal@a as @|h@r salats in. the tale also are lo@al ©nes9 Saint 'Kartln ©f . Tomrs j, for example3 and Saint Denys of Frane@« .
The monk swears God and seint Hartyn^ (ShT3 148) ; that the merohanf is not his e©usin0 This oath is approx
'heeams#- Saint Hartih; destroyed the- .tempi© of - .error*H In the light ©f the monk8 s Intentions
toward, the m© r oh ant * a : wlf e s It., was t© his advantage to fi.d her ©f the assumption that she was a relative6
: Thomas the si ok man .swears hy a iaint • Simon - that .ha has h©en shriven hy his own eurate. (8 umT3 2©94)o This may he merely another rhyme tag suggested by one of the dis- oiples ' named Simon a ' How©ver s Ghaueer; may possihly have alluded to a Saint Simon horn In Kent about the year, 1165d. laying lived as. -a, hermit for .nany- yearss he entered the Garmelit© House in the forest of Aylesford in Kentc : He had a vision of the Blessed Tirgini who presented him a seapular«. deereeing that $? who ever dies. In this garment' -; ;; ' " m ' ; - '
will not. suffer everlasting fir©o’* Although Simon was hot puhiiely veaefated as a saint until after 1450% he was - held in reverenee9 and his vision prompted a heavy traffic 'in seapmlars from his shrinee Ghauoers Justice of the
Gaxt@n8 - QPo ©It e $, VI a 157» .8f gatholi©. Inoyelopedia9 : XIII9 511«,
in K@ats may have had referenee to this friar g as ; %@mas was addressing a friar while using the oathQ - 7 "
fh@ Blessed Virgin9s name also hat a place in the ’ . swearer8 s ’ vocabularyo This is ' a naSmral oath for a . re® '
:ligloms age9 especially one noted for its devotion to Marye in asseveration by Mary has literary possibilities ■in view, of the. faef that: the: medieval, concept of women Was" epitomized by - the two opposites s Mary and Eve„ Several- ef the refereriees -t®: Hary in the. .#ant®rbmry Tales are, in- the 'form of an. exelamati©na Wif@ 8 s, ly^ Goddes mooder 5 and7refleet an
as the city offieial8s - -■ sfal maydei88. (SpbTi 2 l©g):g- ?
@f a devout expressions However $,
after he "had been -©©ntempiatlng a wife« may be an to Mary as the- epitome of all that is good 'and desirable - in womano lronieally3 January actually acquires a daughter of Eve. in the fickle Mayg the d a saintly -Marys ■ Sir Thopas also exclaimsj wQy seinte .■ |5arie.-?- [email protected] t© | ’8 (STT9 784) after dreaming that an elf - queen will be his love? The tavern-keeper.-(PardTp - 6 8 6 } attests to .the frmth 'of:a statement by Invoking Mary as a wit'nesso The -m@r@hant8s .wife (GhTs, 4©S) and the false ©anon (GTTi 1062) also invoke the Blessed Virgiiio Since- the. eharaofers eited as using '- the asseveration are far ■ •from noble, or virtuousr Chaucer may have concurred with .
47
that as oath hy the Blessed -is' pore wioked than a Sismemherlng oathQ
- After hearing Bhlspaa^s Tale abeiat the memk whotrioked heth tha merehant and M s wifes the Best exelaims;
The memk putt© in the manses hoed an ap© 9 And in the wyves eek8 by-Seint
allndes twie© t© Saints He 88
Invoking the fomider■9 +W' 9a ©©rmmeni @m a ao. 5
sot ill smited to Harrys who attempts t© speak with the various pilgrims aooording to their soeial status<>
However9 the reason for the Host9s oath ’’by thatHadrian” (HkBmlp 1©@S} is more difficult
i heard the tale ©£ Prudene ©«9
e as I am a f elI hadd© l©v©r@ than a bare! al©.That ©©odellefp. my wyf9 hadd© herd this tale
.@91”1894asserted his 3ss to see
barrel of ale in order that G-oodelief might hear a tale,aa " “ "" “ ......."", IglS^-lSli'") <>■ Several refers
oath by ”§orpus Hadrian” haw© been suggest®do 6 Bo M a Morris suggests that Harry may have eons id ©red
Bobinson9 the reputed
reality dedueedo efto» po fif / eements9 ”Sto
of a famous monastle .rule, whli from his letters0”
it sr stylish way Qt saying tfea pzeelems lady ©f the H©ly Mother 9 as he may have heard Italians addressing
ssMrv @-o Bo %©st attempts to' link theher as MMadr@ 6 n
Howeverg as others.have suggested^ the asseveration, mayallnd© to Saint Maturlmg whose eorps© |s d©s@rih©d as ®
91w«»aA4.<»n'H 'h<sflsrw StiiiSein tutiffAn&, Furthermore r,morethan t© adhere t© his usual
of seleeting a saint to fit's and Hardener$s ©ath58#) la also dlf fiomlt to ezplaino . Skeat
oommentsg ??It looks as if ths Host and the Pardoner weremet teo ©lear ahomt tha saint9®' mam© 9 @nly knowing him
98 <8 . .
Mini an were omrrent ©< is. of the name of Saint
1955)9 146© der m# 0 Lo Frost 9 ^fhat 9Preel©us Oorpns Hadrian9 9n
Modern Language Notes» 1711 (Marsh 1943.) 9 199=1796
49
The ©iiarlatan oan©zt swears toy Saint Giles when the priest fails in the alehemy experiment {GIT$ 1185} <> Ghaneer himself swears hy this saint (HF9 1, 1158)when he"realizes that the eastle is of previews stemes instead'@f lee0 Aecording to the Golden legend„ Saint Giles was "without earth9 "by despising of earthly
. mthings 8 clear by illumining of eeieaee'o” This des= eription may have suggested - the rare or supernatural
IVo SiBeellaaeoms Oaths .
Is a characteristic of medieval man9soaths4 . He was not satisfied t© invoke only God 9 Hismembers@ and the saints2 but he found it helpful t©swear by his own head8 his heod$ and his relatives*Goneepts such as faith- and fidelity also were
95These and other asseyeratiehs ,constitute the bulk #f this miscellaneous category= However9 since
GaxtoUs @p« el t o9 Vo 91=94
Henry Knight on ? "The Impact of the Black Death/ 8 Bruce and McLaughlins SPo ©it o a p» 219s relates that,the Se©ts after hearing of the plague In England.and eon^ sider|ng it- God?s vengeance on the English adopted theoath "be the foul deth of Engelond
is frequently assooiated with swearing^ a brief cE sews ion ©f medieval emrses re fleeting the anathema eenelmdes.this ehaptero
. Seferal ©f the ml seellaneens oaths in the Canterbury Tales are direet refleetlens of medieval W-neeptSo. The expression' *%y my fey” and its yar# iants Is 1 an example g,'''for fhe speaker is actually sayingj ,5I am staking the truth'@f my statement @n my faith,,w faith was s of e©mrsep an Important asp set of medi eyal- man es' religions life as he eould not o W tain eternal salvation without it© Although the - Appendix of ' this study shows that this affImatf on, waB: somm©ns. It eould nevertheless he employed ad# , . ' vantageously fey an author to ©nhane® his ©haranteri*>' patiens* - ' - - - - ; - ;
; fhe . loathly Lady8s ekarging; the knight $ "If I . sey fals t sey nay^ mpon thy fey** (IBfg 10#?% indi« eatfs that Chaucer was aware that the asseveration _. was of a serious matnre© Arelte also uses it to ©Onfirm his declaration that he is in earnest' afeont his love tm Emily (KnT> 1186) 0 However 3 In most ; .
51
Instances the expression
fhs Freneh equivalent wparfa.yw is used more sparingly = 1 $ is limited t© ©haraeters wh© are met ad^dieted t© awearingo The Man ©£ Law mses it in a
eommemt from a listener t® his discourse %Prelg 110)o His two ©haraeters5 Alla
and 0 onstan© @ 9 employ the oath in moments ®£ emotionalIn praying t© the Blessed Virgin,
of her ©hiId adds9 ’’And yet now lyyeth my 11 tel ©hi lip par fay” (MLT9 S4S) '9 A11e9 herhnshamdg in noSieing the striking resemhlanee between
child and his w$fe8 @x©laims9 HParfay ^is In mya he©dlw (MLTp 1057 K Olifannt the
giant eaps his avowed desire to kill Sir Thopas”par me
is on© of several in Tale of Sir Thopas showing the ■ influen©e of the romances* . ;
The concept of salvation also is reflected in asseverations In this category» Tet these direct refers enees are few and indicate that medieval man considered
SS 6f6 Pe 19s ante o
this eone^pt almost too sa©red for profanity® MBy my savaoiomm^ -is used /by the widow whem th© greedy smnmoner attempts to fineigle her Into paying hush money for a sin she has met ©emmltted (FrT 1@1@)® The Yeoman uses the expression t@ re=ee,foro@ his argument ‘feat alchemy is all in vain (OYTs 848) 0 Harry Bailey® s ?,hy my savaeleun” fHaneFrols 5@) attests to his belief that the drunken Cook will tell a lewd tale®
Jt is obvious that the expression tong peril of my soulen could jeopardize the welfare of the speaker®s im=? mortal souls und it occurs only twice in the Canterbury Taleso Maya whose perfidy is knownshas the audacity to invoke the peril of her soul to deceive her old husband January (MerchTg 2571)® Pertelote swears not only upon the peril of her soul but also upon her life that she is' counseling her frightened mat® well when she advises a laxative to purge him of the humors responsible for his bad dreams {HPT9 2S44)® The solemn ©ath injects another spark of humor into this domestic comedy®
The concept of fidelity9 .which received much emphasis S7 "
in 0hau@er®s timep also lent itself to profanity, Chaucerhimself had strong convictions regarding the obligationImplicit in troths o' He was In accord with the Man of Law’s
©oavieti©*!- that wl3ihest@ Is dette” (M3LI#tg 41) 0 A sim*liar attltmds is refieets# by ArTeragms whem he remindsDsrigeh that "tromthe is the hyest© thyng that man may ;k s p S j , ^ ; C i F r a n E L f $, X4 f f ) „ h . v :v 'v . - : ; ■ " . ' ; . ;
However,," there is ©vldenee ln Ghaneer 9s other poetrythat a regard for fidelity had begun. t© wane and the eon*?eept of troth as man0s highest obligation had"been fel#A ;gated to the realm ©f the ideal, Ghauoer deplores thestate of affairs keenly In the ©pening lines of his ballade
• ^Sak ©f Stedfastnesseffl i' Somtyme :this; world was so Stedfast and 'stable
fhat mannes word was obligaeioun ’ :: < :Md".now 'itf-is'_s© fals and deeeivable ^ ;
. That word and deed as in. eonelusioun ■'. V Ben nothing lykd9® ^H©", suBimarizes; the whole problem in the third stanza by .; ■;.. '': ; - /a- ' . ’. - : ■ ■ - . . : ##stating; that the trend is ^f© tromthe to" flkelnesseo11 - rHnder;sueh eirearns tan© es am author■eomld employ the assever■•ation effectively in two ©pposi te situations, '• It e©mid addStatur®; to- a, #hara@t@r whose fidelity is - kn©wn9 and it \e©uld assist :in depleting the -degeneration of another, Inelthen 'ease] :hn oath ©f eonsiderable Intensity is anti?-elpated in the light of Ghauoer9 s personal sentiments ©ntroth and fldelityo;, '
BoMnsono ©p, . elta p, 65B0
. January (MerohT, 2586) 9 the merchant8s ■ wife ( S M ,418) the leathly Lady ' (WBTg 1340 ) §l all use the asseTerat£ on in domestic situations .with the spouses to whom they have plighted their- troths* The Loathly Lady9 s is most im* pr©ssiTe-S' for; her concept of fi delity .eoinei ded wi th, Chaucer9s« Her tow, why my trouthe” {124©)I assures the feader that she and the Might will have a happy marriages The ■magician or clerk In i'ranklln9 s Tale may rest assured that: Aurelius will pay him the thousand pounds , for, he has pledged his word of honoro -The Host9s three assevera- : tions are less 'Impressiv© .and : may he considered- as simple affirmation So , ... - :
. Sworn brother hoods s .still ■ oommon. in the Middle Ages$ were also contingent on troth requiring absolute fidelity® Chaucer ass 1 gas.... the ©ath te. members of two such sworn .. hrotherhoods In the Oanterhury Tales0 The devil in the disguise , of a: yeoman: voWs to; his swern "brother 8 the greedy summ©ner9 that he will-reveal all his secrets (FrTg M 2- Ther© is a certain 'amount. ©f irony in this; oath by the father of lies in the light of Chaucer*s remarks ©m
this oath t© add a touch of of the: -revelers. in Par-donerls .
are sworn hr©thers in their quest ©n» .' However p #iem they .. find geld
Chaucer also depravity ts the pir't Tale6 These roisterers death and its
instead'g ©me of .the revelers suggests dividing the gold int# tw# parts, torlng the ahsenoe ef th© third swem hrethero With an ©ath hy M s troth (PardT8 824) he assures the @th@r vacillating hrether that he will net-
ij his part .In the murder ©f the. thirds His degener® has r@a®h@i the stage where he ©an r©n@me© his
fidelity t© ©ne brother and pledge fidelity t© the other with the same solemn @ath&
She!,medieval ©fmpller ©f th# Book ©f Virtues and Tlaes suggests other ©©mmon medieval oaths ©f this eat©= g#ry when h@ writes that a, ^man .sw©r@|i-felilyv and pat @©mep in many,wise: by myn h@ud8 ©r by my fair© semie8 ©r ©perCanterbury Sales (KaSg 2670)9 a father appropriate ©ath in view #f the fast that h® has t# arbitrate the dSspmti between Mars and Venus relative W the fat© @f Palemoa and Areit©o Three eharaeters Invoke their father9s .$hs asseveration, is-attributed t® the Shipman (MLEp
sis d®t®rmimati@m t@ keep the Parson from lary invokes his father?# soul when,he dlseover
May In. the arms of her lover s (MerehTs' 2592) @
Menkes • sfatBS- (MkPieelg' I f d He adds ^that is deed” ' wlaeaa he nses % e asseveration iii another momemt ©f levity
' ffee:©karlatan oanon uses the expressioa ”fop myn h#@d” (GYT2 1534) 6 I’roiliis also mtters it. (fr8 Yt 1151)’! and Love -exclaims j, “That is a trewe tale 9 hy myn hood I “ :(MW$ F507} o The rhyme w®rd ,?g©od!S is- the eoxnmon element0- .The @jacmlatloa'is mow ohselet©- and the precise import ©f- ' : - -■ i©i . y .the original reference Is /mmcertalm. Probably it ms.- .■ already s© im ©haucer^s times and the oath e.ould be i.assigned t© almost any character as an affimat 1 ©n:;©r . ■ •
■ ' . • m ' . . vsimply as a rhyme wordo ..The classical eath or an asseveration by a pagan god
appears seldom in the Ganterbury Tales0 itarr observes ; 'that smeh oaths are confined to the nobility and contribute
..l©i - . - . ■■ . ; ;Chiefly t® settings - Proserpina8s exelamation8 “By mymoodres sires somle 1 swere^ (MerehT8 2865)3 is an example©f a classical ©atha Her Invocation' of Satmrn is appro#'
. -:'y . ' . ■ y:i©4; y : .. : ' ^ -priat©y for she needs his wisdom . in order' t© assist tte
i:: ; ^ Oxford English Dictionary. : 370., v y - '' ; ' -. : if2 Gain. ln The Killing of Abel (Towneley Cycle) 9'1 4 S15g' -pa: ;l§| : also-.swears by his hb©d<> .
$tarr I - op *' eit i P q 4i^ _y' 1®- Skeat9: eltoj Y 9 3B8s- points ©nt that the wis#
dom of iafmrn is meationed in EhT& 2444=84450
• £i©[email protected]* The only ©they ©lassieal ©ath ooemrs twle© in the Enightif Tale (7©83 1747)8' Mars $n equivalent t©nW. G©a^ ■ '
Sir 0 Ilf aunts the dreadful giant's swears by Termagaunt, , ■ t , ■■■ . " ' " - i@s . ^ ■- ■iSTTs SI©) s a Saraeea -g©d or . id©!® The saying also oeeurs
,li| ; ' ■. . ;■In Beves of Eamtoun* @nt ®f the romamees mentioned in theTale ef Sir Thopa.s® Skeat observes that Termagaunt was alsointredueed into early English mysteries and moralities and
- : ■■■;' - ■ ' : 169 :was- usually assigned t# ranting oharaeters® Ghaueerexpression ^par eharlte©” (STT8: 891) -was also a roman©#©©[email protected] oeourring approximately thirty times in Guy of. ■ ■ ' 1 # ■ ■ ' ’ . ' : ^ ' Warwick * ■ '
Sir ..fhopas s, after having made elaborate preparationsfor the ensuing battle with the giants ^swoor on ale and ' -breed/: Hew that the geaumt shal . be deed^ CSTT| 872=875) o. 1@# . ■ ■ ■ .11© ■ ■ ‘ , lebimson . and Hammond both imply that the asseveration
Robinson* #p® ©it&;: p# 844e ■
Sugen Kelbingg ed* j- Sir Beves of Eamtoun„ 1® #47 J ■■p* M o ■ • : . : " ' - " ' . ' " ■" " ‘
Skeat @ op® ©l t®T- T * 191®IQf -jtiii-ag Zunitzao ed&J The Roman©e of Guy of larwiokj
w, me® : . ; ■ ' - "
. Robinson * ©p * ©lt® . p® 84#®: 11© So -R® ;Eamm@nd9 English. Verse Between Ghauoer and
Surrey/ p. 414® . .
la..a 'buElesg.me of the soleinn oath bj the peaeoekg awan8
fke- iitarary tyadSilen ©f the latter dates haek t© Yoqx dia Paon hy Jaeques d© Longuyon. about the year.1.S1 ©*: whi.eh deserlhes a feast ©f ..the peaeoek and the toWs
; / V.-. ■ v : . 211 ■ .■taken ©n the h©dy ©f the MrcUIt has already been' sho'wn, that several ©aths in the '
tale refleet these eurrent In the romances whi eh Ghauoerwas .paredylng’with the fale of Sir Thoms ' this lS::als© .trme. of Sir Thopas.8 tow to kill the giant-9' as shown in % . .csimilar ' eouplet from Sir Beyes of Hamt©im: . ■' ■ : •
' If 'if wer© so9';.t|ll Bernes.were dades; . . 113 '' The' kynge @wer#» he wold nenere "ete hr#d#»- --
# following lines from .#ny of . Warwick show the same
. I s.ehall' :menyef et® iaredde 115 f© day9 or hat
"lamra Hihhard -Loomis eites fohr -other passages in, vaMeh' thread and deai,4 ©©@nr as part of h©ro?-s tgw in the r©~- ' '114 i - l - - :■ - -v - -■ .mameess However s .Ghauoer9s addition of the word wal© ” to the ©onventional vowg has led HertBbefg to eonolude
t#^-E 6 blngI m / . © l t ^ llo • ; - . .
. , zupitsai^ ; ; ;; ;W4. lanra Hibbard Loomis# ’’Sir Thopas8" gomroes and
Analognes of Ghauoer9s Ganterbary Tales^W , .& Brye G-ermaime Dempster § edi.torss ppo 545=544 e
ran and
that it implies an oath by. the aaerameat» ale beiag srnhm: :.xig. :stituted for wine® Although oaths by the saeramentwere aommom* Ghaueer relegate# the only profane allusionto the saarameat to a reveler (FardfV f57}> However$,he was quite eoaslstent.in' limiting referenees t# ale tohumorous situations® . lor example9 the phrase iCae breed.m ale*5 eeeurs in the' deserlptloa of the falling ©arpenter
- ' . , U ©who. ffoead neither to sell®/ He breed ne ale 9' til he .©am©to the ©elle% (MiIlf 9 5831-=5©22) o Furthermore 3 Aliee ©f
■ Hath and Harry BaileyJ both in©lined toward the boastings© ©haraeteristi© ©f Sir fhopas j use the expression^ 11 Asever© mote I drynk© wyh or al©?? (WBPr©l$ lid) and(GehPrelg BSE) o Thopas9 asseveration was- ©omaon in r©*‘ 'maneesj as, previously ©xplalnedj and the tale?,'adds'levityt# the vow# ' ; , • : -. v ■ : -
ghaueer8 s'Pardoner ©ites the relie.9 wblood of Gristthat is in Hay las'” (PardT9, 658) 8 as if the egression, werea popular ©nth® The ©ustom of swearing by relies is re=fleeted twlee In the Canterbury fales® . #Helpl hooly eroys@f Hr©meh©l2aH (Hvf 9 4886) s sereams the miller®s wlf@$ asAllan- and, her- husband are engaged In bloody eonflie.t s
Wilhelm Hertzbergs tranSo i Ghaueers Canterbury .tes.ehlehtenl $« ©bio
11 m - . * - - 'BebimsoUs ep;» ait® I p® 7B98 translates the. ex= pression thus s "He did net stop to trade on the way§t$ and ©onslders it a eurrent expression®.
A.©e©a?diag t© Sk@at$ this cross m s a portion of - the er@s@found "by Saint Elies and was brought t© Norfolk from the
• . - 117 ' ' - ' ■last about the year 1223« The Host 8s- oath9 Mby theoroys which that Saint Sl©3me f©nd,v (PardTa 951) g is©ipeeially approp©s» When the Pardoner Is trying to palm .off. his fharlatan relies ©a the group § the Host Is quick .te repeal his disgust by swearing on an authentic r@lle3
the true or©sS o . - - - '©aths by the relies again-illustrate the general
practice ©f adapting .something saered t@ profanity6' lie-':.;. .■ : • ■; : ... ,lames Work suggests that the sam§ prlneiple may have.influeneed medieval man^s .ahrsing& He sees a reflectionof the eecXesiastieal curse'or anathema in several passagesIn Shau@er8s wbrks». . : f'-:c ^ . -; " The anathema was originally used by the church againstBOB-beli©vers$ pagansg skeptlesV and.heretiesg but by 'Ohaueer8s time it was employed for various offenses againstpeople within the church it self o Fartlierm©r©s various •.forms of the anathema' began t# appear in the vernaeularand were read four times a y@ar>::either alone or .©oheomitant
■ # ^ akeat« Piers the Plowman; III. 85o ::
. lames Work$ "Echoes ©f the Anathema in ChaucerIwPmiAl ZLV1I ' (June 1932}» 419=4# o ; " ■ . /
with ©xeoimnunioation0 The English Register ©f Q-odst©v i'mahery eeatalnp a- t^leal e©el©slast|@al eurse la the
: y..;. - el hen aeursed of god and of al h@llchurch8 ,fro |)e ■ sole ©f : her (fot©} to the erowne of her >ede 0 v:
Slepyng and wakyngs setting or st©ndyng9 and in al / ; y . her workes workyng and in al her wordes ■ spekyng@ o
And hmt 3 1 f ^@I have graee' of god for to amende . y : :hem here hy her lyfe9 for t# dwells.In payne:of
; hell© ■■for euer with^out end©0llf .. ■. Echoes ©f. this curse 'are apparent, in Ghaueerss mock- ■
©mrs© against those who fall t© give ■ credence to his dreamsIn-Roms©- ©f l’am©; : ; -
... y' y' jr# hyt' mysde^n :'ih., her, t h o g h t :' - ■ - _- ■ Thorgh malloioWenteneiena : y . v- .; ' And whoso thorgh presmmpelons-, . ■ '
’ @r hatfgr ©r' skorn: -or; .thorgh yehvye $; i ^ ...':,Sispitl or.-.jhl1©? or .viiangrei '%sdem hytp pray-I jes#. #od- ' ; ,, ■
- .That Xdrem© he:harefot§ dreme -he shod); / 'y: '- Biat every-'harm :t&at.. any man. y . . y . .
- - Hath"had:s syth th#;,w©rld' hegana y ' - -■ , . :y . -. ,. Befall# h3#.therof% or he steivet •' ■..' ■■
A M .gramnte he .mote hit . fml deserve (HE3 1 9 ,92-108) <> .■ Aeeordlng to -Workg Ohaucer es i$ dr erne he haref ot^dreme ,
he shod” alludes. to the phrase Jfsl@pyng and wakyngie in the ecclesiastical ©mrs©A Ohauoersums up the various plagues and misfortunes usually earefully enumerated in the anathema In the lines s : "That every harm that any man/ Hath had syth the world h#ga^:;®a.falls. : y v: " ' y .
"... 119 Andrew. Glarki edy j The English Register of Gods tow Hunneryn p? 50 " : :
68
- B©ho@s of the anathema are also present InTaleso The poor widow In Friarga Tal® ©ensigns the smmwmoner to the devil in this fashioni
The devil .« " * * s© feeeh© hym @r he d@y©And panne and al§ but he wol hym repent® |FrT3 1688^
oalso sees a possible reflection of this ©mrse In the
©losing lines of IBTiAnd eek I pray® Jhesm short© M r lyres That wol nat b@ governed by M r wyves;
. And ©Id© and angry nygardes of dispensesBed,send© hem soon® v@rray pestilene©S IfBTj,‘; l8 Sl=?l8Si
Work oonelndes that §haue©r8s use of the most awful ©f©eelesiasti ©al impreeations in humorous literature is 8
ooDiaentary- on the ehureh of his time as well as an indl*@afion that he was familiar with the Homan rltualo
QHiPfER IT
SlfflMARY ■ AUD COHGLUSIOM
yefleetlmg th© ©mst©ms ©f M s age9 assignet many and. "rarloms ©atks t© M s ©hara@ters0 The first ■seetion of this chapter contains a brief summary of the ; mere pertinent aspeots of eaeh categorya The second part attempts to answer the question? lid the oaths actually eomtribHt© significantly t# the work as a whole even themgh eonseioms detailed seleetion was limited beearnse :.©f: the prevalence of swearing? ■
lo ' ©aths by the deity* That swearing was the rule rather than the exception in ©haucerfJs time is especially .evident in the oaths by the deity* TBy Sods,” the most frequent oath; was so common that it could be assigned t© almost any character, without special consideration for personality* Wor did the elaborations of this saying contribute any emotional emphasis in spite of Starrvs content
: . ■ IS© . . ' . . -tiorn that they did? The elaboration g as shown In ■Chapter III3 was subservient to the rhyme scheme* "Pardee% the most popular french equivalent9 shows no consistent pattern* Either form *en placed at the beginning of the
line M i more emotional f©ree0 !5(5©a woof and ”S©i fonbede9 M also numerous9 merely refleet the tendeney of medieval man to swear fretuentlyo
The conoept of salvation when part of these oaths was relegated ehiefly to oharaeters like Alsalon ani Si eholas in the Mlllerls Tale» The friar$ s exaggerat ion of his importance with the oath "so ©oi me save* is on© of the subtler applications of an oath for satir@ 0
Medieval man also hesitated to invoke Jesus Christ di~ reetlys' and Chaueer assigned the few expressions of #is - type to the eharaete.rs of the Klllerfs Tale o
The two persuasive express1ons§ or ©©ddes sake" and«for ©oddes loves" -exhihlt some definite seleetiomo "For .©oddes sdke" denotes impatienee or irritation on the part - of the speakerj while "for ©oddes love" is a gentler form #f persuasions This distinetion enabled Chaueer to depict a momentary flash of impatienee in the ever patient Griselda
8 0 The.dismembering oathss These (oaths) bore the brunt of ©ensure from medieval ©lergymen$ for they were vividly assooiated with .Christ.8© physical suffering and death® latmrally? few individuals would wish to ©ontribute to this suffering In the form of oaths 8 and he nee refrained® Chaueer eon.seiously seleets these asseverations for persons of the Miller8s types, and never uses them even as rhyme words with any.other .oharaeters.® ■ .- • -
So Oaths Jbj the saints o' Oaths hy the saints evolve# from the,praetie© pf invoking a speoifie saint for aid In' a specific need. Several asseverations in the Oanterhnry Tales reflect' this -tendencyo Saint Thomas of Kent and Saint Frydeswyde are invoked dmring Illness« Heferenees to several other saints are vagn© 8 hmt ©haneer may have M e n familiar with facts not transmitted to our periods locale also governed selection of saints for oaths8 as ’ shera in the Shipman9 s Tale and In the Beeve W. Tale 9 Saint Beter was invoked hy those especially addicted to hlnnt speecho The Blessed Virgin was invoked by January as the epitome of all that |s good and desirable in women«, :
4o The miseellaneems oaths6 This categoryg cemposed Of a variety of oaths8 is ■indicative of medieval -man8s varied profanity« It also implies that the oaths by ©od and by the saints had become s© common that speakers had : to re sort to different' concepts and things ‘ for , emotional ,emphasis6 The medieval concepts of faithg troth9 and salvati-om figmfe in this categoryo 5JBy my faith" had fallen into the same mediocrity as yby God*’ and could be assigned to any character for some emphasis» The varions French forms like "par ma fay” show the influence ©f the romanceso ■ . .
■: : ®By my tronth@g ” msed sparingly3 reflects: several aspects- of Ghameer9s conception of fidelity? When used
©6
ly vlrtmous eliaraeters to attest t© their fidelity, it is t© the past as la the: Fran kiln8 s Tale and t©Sa the "-Wife of Bath-s Tale6 " Ohauoer assigns
it t© the father of lies in the Iriarg s fale and also t© the degenerate reveler in the Par done r 9 s fale o The In*- . stanees■sited smhstantiate ©haueer9s e@ntenti©a that the trend is Mfr© tronthe t© flkelnesseo:” . . \
All f©mr eategori es present a vivld pietwe of the popmlarltF ©f oaths in fourteenth eentnry Inglando. This is expected In a work whioh depicts somewhat realistically a medieval pilgrimagea It wemld he„deplorable if ©haueer had assigned his ©haraetefs speeches purged of the expressions eurrent in their usual- daily eenversatlono However s the praetiee ©f assigning ©aths can he carried t@ , extremeso Therefore |t is necessary to summarize briefly the relationship ©f the ass eve rat Ions :.t@ the characters la order to ascertain whether, they contributed to the.work. as a wholes " . , : -
Harry Bailey runs, the. gamut of medieval oaths-. This, .|s naturalg for .Harry as an inn-keeper had contacts with all types of people and henee' had an opportunity t@ hear many different types' .of profanity. At times he probably missed the full, implication Of an oath and so.Used a confused ©meg such as "by corpus Hadrian6.” His .contact with people made it necessary for him
, ' . . 6f
a grasp ®f any sitnation9 an awareness viSiieh is re=fleeted, in his swearing hy a genmine relie when the ' -Pardoner is trying to infliet false relies on the groupd
fhe Wife of Bath is also eenspienoms with her many oaths daring the frank dlseussion of her marriages0 Her swearing laoks the color and variety of the Host's9 and she prehahly felt that she had to invoke a higher power frequently in order to make some of her revelations more helievahle to her listenersq The merchant9s wife ©f the Bhiiman.is f a l e like Ailee of laths swore often» Her d©= mestl© life, was not too happy 9 as her M s hand was to© "busy with;his oalonlations t# give her much attention,. As a •result's she even had te resort to such’ coarse oaths as- wPeterf to attract his attent1 on$
The Prioress$s ©ath hy Saint Eoy is still an enigma& The appendii: indleates that the oaths hy the saints pre*- dominate in the speeches of the characters of the Hiller^s and leeyeis Tale* The tw© - swearing women also invoke the saints9 In the light of these faets9 did Ghaueer assign the Prioress an oath hy a saint because basically he -een= s! dered her on a par with the Wife of Bath? Of does, the Prioress"s ©ath merely allude to the fact that swearing heing eoiBmon, she felt obligated t© adopt an ©ath by a saint whose personality coincided with' hers?
©haBeerss sqtilpes■ani knights are an exception to thosewh©„a®Q©Mlsg t© a medieval, semen ©xeerpt swore many foul- 1 B1 : ■■■ - : : .. . - : ■ 5 . ' .
©athSp The Knight himself uses only onemild oatha The'eontemplatiT© Palamon of t W Enight8s Tale never swears9
ah# the more active Areite uses asseverations sparingly^Arveragus and Aurelius9 knight and squire of the Iran kiln rs'Tale a oonfine their'swearing to serious moments and oir«eumstaiieesj for they both believe that a yow or an oathsignifies an obligation^ The knight in the Wife of lathes; j:Tale shows the same tendeney& Sir Thopas alone swears ©n^ , :ale and bread in the boasting tradition of the romances9
Gonselentions clergymen such as Ghaueer 5‘s own Parsonexpressed ©oneern over the abundance of oaths among theservants if f the dhureho The friar 9 the Summoner the ;V ' -Pardoner9 the priest in the- Ganon9 s Yeoman9 s Tale g the monkin the Shipman9s Tale all show a definite tendency toward ,: the habit $ . .-The.:fionk. appropriately does not swear s a nir^ :'©umstanoe ■Whifh helps him to preserve his dignity underthe lost is good-natured ribbingc, - X
The Millerthe Gookj the characters of the Miller9©Tale, all swear1 violently a The leeye himself swear s only©re©* but the characters of his tale at the expense of theMiller, are addioted to all types ©f pro fani ty 9 including; ,
$he dismemberlng eaths» f3a|s faet is In keeping with the : BeeYe^s premiseg "Right la his eherles ternes wol I spekeF
. ; :The Merchant swears s©Moiis hut his tw© principal
@haraet©rs9 Jammary and llay9 delight in profanitye Neitherthe Man of I,aw nor his' eharaeters invoke ©oi or M s saintsoften o • The Physiol an.a whose "studie was but lit el ©n theBibles,® uses m© asseverations9 and it is to be regrettedthat ©hameer.assigned the naive Virginia of the Physle£an6sTale even three mild oaths? '■
The ©aths of the revelers |n the Pardoner^s Tale were •evidently so , grisly for t© heere.® that the-.Pardoner m n=sidered It advisable merely t© state§ ' •
And many a grisly ©eth thann© han. they sworn9And Grlstes blessed body al t@rent@ (PardT9 708-709)*
-'Be quotes only their milder oaths during the rest of th@ . Tale # . - -
This study indieates,that Ohaueer attempted to be Seleetive in his oaths when he was not hampered by the limitations imposed upon him through the praetlees and eoneepts of his time® Many of the asseverations^ especially the elaborated expressions$ are primarily important only as rhyme words9 but he was careful not to assign an ©ath t® a character even for rhyme unless the person would naturally use that type of oath. However 3 the study also shows that if. swearing had been less common9 ©haueer could have used
©atlas mere ©ffeattvelF for the: subtleties of eharaeter- izatioa as demonstrated. in-Ms giving the ever patient (3-riselda one brief moment of Impatlenee through an oath©
' BariHg-Gould.^, So j, The Mves ©f ■ tte Saints 0 16 y 0 Edin'burgli; j#hm #raat g 1#14^ ' :v'v . _ :• ■
Bowden Muri el S A.. Gemmentary on ths Q-eneral Prologue to the Canterbury Tales * Zew York: The Macmillan Gompany 8 .' if4S.* ;@i@ ppo. :-:v'; < ' - . /
Bryans Ia f 6 9 and Dempster 9 Germaine8 editorss Sources and Analogues: of 6 haneer.8.s ianf erbimF .Tales» ,■ 0h|@ag©: - WnlYersity of Chicago-Press$, 1941» 765 ppA - ‘
Clark n Andrew , editor* The -English Register of Goads tow '" Farmery a 8 Vo London: Published for the Early ,'V ■ .English Text Soxiety by Eegan Pauls Trench9 Trubner & Co# Ltd* p' 1905o Yolo I 9 584 pp» , • C
Clement> Clara irskine 9 A Handbook of Christi an Symbols andStories of the- Saints as Illustrated in; Art *' Boston:
• Houghton Mifflin Company9 1886* 549 pp0
0onlton> Co Go9 Chaucer and His England* Few York: G 0 P 0 Putnam0s Sonss ISOS* 521 pp0 . .
I ' - ' Life in the Mltdle 'Ages* 4 t » Cambfidg©: At the; ' University Press9 19290 Yolo III^ 183 .pp# • .
: Cowlingg George H 0 9 Chaucer* London: Methuen & Go* Ltd* g 'i' 1937* '233 pp* - y- ' - ’ - : - . ' : ■
.'Ellis9 ; Ea Sd> editor9 The Golden Legend or Lives of the I-- ' • : Bajnts as Englished by. William Gaxtonc, 7Vo London:i / J 6 Ko Dent. and ;Co * 8 1900 o ;England * -George % editor«, The. Towneley Plays* • London s Pub- .
lished for the Earley English Text Society by Humphrey Mlifordg @%ford Hnlvers i ty press,_1897 & 417 pp * ' :
Iraaols 9 - Felsorij; editor s The Book of Ylces .and Virtues * ■’• London:. Published for the Early English Text Society .
by Humphrey Ml If or dj, Oxford University Press jl94E*378 PP o ' . " . '
Ir© deriek$ -eat tor s Poll tical * Religious and Lot©' P®ems0 lendon: Published foe the^^larly English Text".;
; , . Soeiety by Kegan Paulj Trenchs Trubmer & 0®, ltdo s: : . • i s s e * 5 4 8 •' ■ - . : ' ;
Haipie$ii.t lleaher Prescott 9 ghamoerr A Bibllegraphihal Manua] Hew York: The Maemillan eompany9 1908 o iff PPs:"; • :
jj, English Verse Between ghauo# and Surreye Durham: 'Buke%niy#rsity Pressg- l#Bf& / ##1 pp.* ■ '
Chaucers Canterbury?»Q©s^ ■Vsohes-Insti# ;ohiohteht • letpzig und
b mo. date 6.- 674 ppdH$u©kley s Henry Barrett^ Hotes on 6 hau©egoV Horthampton;
, The ' Homo tuck Pre ss 19076 584 ppoHorstnannf Carld editorl The is ;South=-English Le
Londoni iaPublished for - the Early English Text Society H, Trubner & Cot $ 1887. 4@@ pp @ ' v ;
Johnson* ' Burgess * The Lost .&rt- of ■ •■Prof amity» Hew York: The . ' Bobbs-Merril C:ompany$ 194.8 = 285 ppo . ' . .> •
9 -x;: Jet English -Wayfaring Life in the Middle Ages A Hew York*. C.o. P »,:Putnam8s Sons;* 1889&. . 464 pp# , -
* Eugen9 editor b Sir Be yes of Hamtomio London s Pub*" , 11 shed # r the Early English Text Society by Kegan; v Paul B TrenohB Trubher & C©? Ltdo 9 189S 0 '417 pp0 y /
Kosohwitz's, Eduard^, editor 9 Karls des Q-rossen Beise -Haoh' Jerusalem m d 0onstantinope10 Leip&lg: #« % Belsland;
' o x l l . X I l - : p p ® .v .' :■ :' : : .. I -.;:' :
Lea oh s MacEdward9 editor9 Ami# and Amllouno . London. Pub# >.lished for the Early English Text -Society by the
. . Oxford University .BressB.tlfif, - oil§ 157; pp&Manly* John Matthews g editor9 Canterbury Tales by
Chaucer o... Hew York: Henry Holt and Comp any 9 1928,PP'» ' N . ; - . - - - ‘ ... . ; .. . " ;
Meeohs) So Bo and Allens Hope Emily $ editors j The Book ofLondon! Published for the Early
English Text.Society by Humphrey MilfordgOxford Wnirerslty Pressa 194Qo . 441 pp0
HattheWa F 0 B» 9 editor, file English Works of John WyGllfe London| Pnhlished for the Early English Text Society . hy lrutim@r:. k ®@e $ 1 ©©#^ §?B pp 0 _ .
Hortonj-:James, edltor9 the Moron Riwl@o Londonr Printed for the- GamdeS •Sooiety' hy Be J# M e hols and Sons,ISiSo■ 479 pp9 ■ ■
@wst g So Bp Literatnr© and Pnlpit In Medleiral England * .©amhrldgei i;t the Wniversity Pressf l9Sio #16 pp^
Peaeoekg Edward; editor, Inst met ions .for Parish Priestshy J ohm My re» London; Puhlished for the Early English P@xtal,S©@iety hy Eegan Parnl, Ireneh, Tnahaer & Sos, : L t d o $ 1903o 108 pp6
Power, Eileen,'editor, ghe Goodman of. Paris& London:So Boutledge & Sons, Ltdo, IfSSo §4© pp*
Bie.kert, Edith8 compiler, Shameer^s World-p New York: Golnmhla Nnlyersl ty Press, 194©4 456 pp0
Ro' Lo editor, The Bial.olc of Alexander by John .Bar boro 4v,0 Edinhnrgh: William Blaekwoodand Sons:,'19356 Tolo la eolxxxly, 105 ppo ,,
B©blns©n9 1*.N ?, editor, The Somplete•Works of Seoffrey ; Shaneero Boston: Heughton Hifflin Gompany9 1953o3cl, 1155 pp6 ; ' ■ . ' ' ; , ...
losSj James Brneeg and SeLanghllna Mary Martin, editors.The Portable Medieval Reader0 New Y o r k T h e Viking Press, 19496 #07"pp* ■ ■ ■ ■
©keata Walter So > The Somplet© Works of Seoffrey ©hameero 7y» Oxford:- At the, Clarendon Press, 10940 Vol0 V 9515 pp» ' ; ... ; ., ■
: ; , The Vision of William Goneerning Piers thePlowman6 3ya Sxford: At the Olaremdon Press, 1886«
Workman^ Herbert B o „.John-Wyelifo 8v* ©xford;- At the Slarendon Press | l§36t 543 ppo ; '
Inpitza$ Jtllimsa edit or, The Romano e of Guy of Warwick 6' London: 6Pn"blished. for the Early English Text .©oeiety hy N o Truhner & Go <, 9 187 5 * 467 pp0 t
n
' Bo 'PERIODICAL ARTICLES
©Line, Ro H 0 3 "Four ChaHoer Saints3” Modern Language lotes»LK CHdvem'ber 3.045) 480=4826
lESst3 Co Lo @ riThat ^Preeious Corpus Hadrian9 s” Modern, Language Rotes 9 /1,VX (Maroh I§42) s i?7=lff6
Sa333m@nd9 lleaxiQr Po s tiTw© Chaucer Cruees 3 ?? Modern Language .H©tesf XKII Cielrmary, 1907} #L-#2e , , ; - '
Kalug.as Max9 ReTiew of Hmg© Lange9 s ? ifDie Versi eherungen - hel Chaneer« E m 1 1 sehe Stndien» %^II, f7=790 - ’ •L©¥©st John Livings ton <, "The Prioresses ©ath^ Romanic
• Review T (Oetober^Beeeiaber 1914) 3 568-585»WorrlSj Dorothy Hachrid©s "Harry Bailey?s 8Corpus Hadrian8 9 n
Modern Language• Hot©s9 ELVI1I (Mareh 1955)a 146=148fBtarny Herhert ffa 1 "Oaths In Chaucer 8s Poems a" West ■ '■ . - ' ■ Tirginia University .BulletIn; .Philologloal Aiudiea, :
IT ISeptWber lS45jy 44wS50 ' 'Tat loch 9 John S 0 Po r "Chaucer and the Legenda Anreaa"
Modern Language Wotee» XL? (May 195#)? 296^298oWainwrights Benjamin B0? "Chaucer8s Prioress Again; An .: -■ Interpretive Hotes" Modern Language Rotes * ZLTIII
■ (January 1955.) 9 54^576 : ' ■Shi ting I Bo Jps tj8By By Eader Soule8 <," The Journal of
English and Cermanie Philologya H I T (January 1945) 9 ;1 =0 $ ■ " ' ' ■
Worhg James A$ "Echoes of the, Anathema in Chaucer sn Publication of the Modern Language Association^H I T (June:1932lT419=45©&. .C= DICT10EARIES AHB 11CTCL0PEDIAS
Attwater9 Donald9 editor8 A Catholic Dictionary* lew York: . The Macmillan Company9 1949» 552 pp®
The Catholic Encyclopedia0 15 v* Hew,York: Robert Appleton CoEgiany8 .19121 ’ , , ' ' ’ , 1
The Oxford English Dictionary6 ' 12 v'o Oxford: at the r: Clarendon-PresS3 19336
7-6
A GATEGOBIGAL LISTING OF THE OATHS Ilf THE GMTERBiBY TALES
3,6 By
go
lo OATHS BY THE BEITYlag
Wife ef Bal
PardomeE1 KeEOhaat-i Berehaat
KnT 1810ByT 4026, 40568 4008 BvT 4252
7824509 489s586, 654$, @95
>1 lg92^SmcProl, 1675
SimT 19509' 2106 s
FrankT 6979 1521 FarSFr©! 457 ShT 118s S798 424 SET 5858 5851 W 25229 2825 EB& 2894.s 29748 5120 1PT 2909 8 2917MameT 248 'G1T1062FrajiklT 983 3 989 . EnT 1599 FrT 1565 M#3?©ET 2297 WBFr@i 2008 510s 555,
‘ 712s 950SqTlpl 696 FranklT 1445Par&T 672
122'llai)©rati0 Bs @f the in the tabula ties, as these <$by God" are in-
fmetiem
Merehant8s wife Prudene©
ShT 188, 21§ MelT 155S BBS B9BS .636$..845, 995Ye©mam9s
worker • False eamom Armold of Hew=
f owm •
e $ $ - 1 4 2 ,63E$
Yeomaa (Devil) Mam of law
Absalom Jeha Mam m S®aaf ©r life of lath
947
0YT 1447 MlliProl 5158 m p m i 2784 Fr.T 1595 -MDlmt 58M111T 58.68.Mill# 5792 IvT 4®©6
198 >• 459 8 692,
Smmaoner ."
. 559:668, 793FrT 1455% 1578 Frf FrfS W : 1 S 7 S : , . : : l ' .
Smsf■17S4 s 2105 SmmT 194©®1# ; 27M: 455
Imstimlss E© rehant
Amrelius
MereM 1401, 1485 Me.rehT 1495 • ' Mereh# 1544, .1549 MerehT 2115 9 8125 MerehT 2575 '8 #: 554/578
Merchant8 s wife Prmd lost
6im tale
PhT 248 .Part# 555M Sh# 406M@l# lOSfg 1840 MkPfol 1962 # # 8982 EF# 8 ©97 0 # 7 8 8 9 #59 Man©# 16.©., 221
44
?8
Ga G-©d forte®de ' Gook
J amiary Jmstinims
Merehant8 s wife
': ; ,#am©a la M l e: . FfS est
Q-od stellde Garpeater
- . . H@rehanS,8s #feBo God help m@ s© ' Aralt®
@ f B a t l .
Monk ' 'Yeoman
me Sod) . . AllaomnSife @f Bath.MaF#i®at*s wife Yeoman IhantSoleer life of Bath
Bo S@d me save and ’ ' Hie hoi asi- yarl ants . Miller ■
. : . Ateealen' . life cf Bath
friar Merehant
.', fheofraste(#od him save) ' Bevamt
' Slerk "(God my soul save) • Griselda
■ " -. Walter'. . ■ Apetheeary
Fo for Goddes love and Aroite/ variants ■ Ghameer
. ; ' Enight '. . - . Mill#
loathly lady ■ fity official Jannary
GKProl 4S59.©If IBB- .©If 1 © #Merohf 1761 Merohf 1665 franklf 161©Shf 125 Shf 208 Meif 1066 ©if © 0 6©Yf 1046 g 1064 ©Yf 1575 11 Ilf 5427 GIT'859MerehPral 1252 ... Shf 1668 286Emf 1127 IBfrol 825 Merehf 25§2 Shf 274 HPT 5425 ©YProl- 641 'MlIlf 5709 IBPral 201 j. ©OS flPf©1 805’ .Shf 17#©Yf 740 HPf 54©8 1 BT 425MiIlf 5281 Millf 5525 MiIlf 5795 IBProl 621 Smmf 18099 2112 Shf 226 ’Merehf 1510 S w f 2265 franklf 1225 ©If 505 ©If 1064 Pardf S6 S Enf 1084 j 2782 MlllProl 5172 WBf 106©Millf 585©WBf 1096 .Smnf 2055 s 2197 Merehf 1814
79
F0 Eoi1 Goddes and ' Ganaeevariants
S'o; For 'Godebs §
He
to ■ Jssus
to:M%
E 0 a Goddes nams-
l.o ©.’feliers'.as God'is
. ; "by heven© g#-Sod me
Crowd"
Merehant;8 s Priest
of Bath
ofThomas : Gaaoa
SqT 458, 464.: HPT 2945, 2954 CYT 1176 'CYT 1581
Friendsof
.*'* -Q1T 155 GIT 877 MSrehT: 2165 HerehT 2341Pra&klT 842' ShT 421 'CYT 1587 ■ EhT 180G
; . WBProl 584 . PardT 840 :Mer ehT 2168
.■MlilT 5711 millT 5717
,
H | l l T v-5788 '
SmnT 1941 CYT 1182
I . hope .’to I y#w t© God ' Goddes mer ©y. 'By the Trinitee so God my sonle
854'-. - FrProl 1276
: . PhT 250'rs . dame ManeP 518 ■ .
MerohT 1267 2407.
SmnT 2205
.Host '2495 685
.985 .2 1
80-
Lo Others• God his., soule "bless© Fox EFT 5Si5s© ;G!D.d yoh' "blesse, ■ „ Host . . HPErol 2788as -God is trew® ', Han- of - Law : - - MLT 169 .
''' Host : i 'h HHProl l89?. Cokkes 'bones . . V. . Host -MsneProl .98 29
. : " Goddes;; preei©us hert© Pardoner . l PardT 651: : . G o d d @ s m # # - Eloholas -h-. : ffiillTSQlS
• . ^ : : PVT 4087 ,; Goddos armes . : .Reveler, PardT 6'92
. :" ■: -; armes two Summoher .• TOProl- 853 . -, - Goddes sireete- pfme ' Wife' of" Bath ¥BProXvS85 : :- Shaueer ' ; ': m i P m l 95#
... Goades :'soiil©: . - .Hiller: . ' MlllProl 5158" . . . . . -Allas:v ;lW '4l8f V i;... ;'-;::G6 ddes ©orpms. " . . Ei oho las . . ' : MillT S743
. .I- . Geddes' dlgne.: passioun Host ; HLTEpi' 1175 -- -B0 Isvokihg’ Christ?s members ; ' : \ -. : ’ Grist forbed® it .for ; , ' ; -'"y■; '■ .his' hooly blood - Carpenter MillT S5G8 •V Grlstes .peynW - John ■ : ' - RvT 4084'
I.- Gristes'-somle:-;. '' - : Allan - : -i;' < / Iff : 4:865 :'l-v- v GristesvpassieS v - ■. Gook ; h G k F r o l 458?
:-_Gb .Others:"' " ;:.v ' I,;:; ' v '-l :- . Gorpus domlnus } Host v; , Print '455
V Gorpus bohes.'.,. • Geodelie f. Mkrrol 1906 ": v. -: Eayle s ; and"' bi1 blood Host , .; - Par dint; 8 8 8
;;; Eagles - Pardoner - PardT 651: Armes and by blood- ' . : ■
:: - ' : and bobes v;V;i; . : -' Hiller ; ; " ; ;#llPr#l. 5185 :
Aiisom : - Htiif. ssei:;
Ac '.Xhrbking; io.dga members. ;■ Goddes bones ’; / • :
111 d OATHS BY TH1SAIETS" m . Prioress
Garter:;:GenProl 180 ZrT 1564 v
Carpenter MillT. .5485 A 3461
81
Thomas ..of; InaiaSz^ssss.Not®.-(Neot) Ghthhert: . .James .
Ana
Simon.; '
MartinAugustine.Silas,
wife of m m .Merchant,''
.John AllanWife of Bath Summoner'Monk - ; -Senator i :;v ' : Pardoner- - ■ v Thomas9 wife . City'officialHost -: ■ ■;llf© :;'df Bath' " Smmoner ;j- Me reliant9 s wife Canon * s Yeoman .Wife -of: Bath Smmoner ;; i-';
Thomas
: Merchant-91 'Thomas "1: lif e of .
PriestHostPardoner HOSt ' ; ' ' MonkHost
WBProl 667 HerehPro1 1230 MI11T 5449 MI11T 5771 'HtT 4127 f ' RifT 4264 WBProl- 312 ■ ‘ . PrT 1445 ShT'555:;/= ;MIT 1019-; - WBProl . 164 . 'SumT 1800 SumT 2252 'BardT 752: MEtnt 18 :. WBPro l 483:FrT 1332 1 "ShT 214- -WBProl 446 . - i-"FrT 1615 : /'f :.SumT 1945 • ’ ; ' i ShT 227 "SumT 2 # 4 -i ' #r'#T/-l357\ 1899 PardT 685 ShTldeB ;
ShmT 2 2 0 2 SumT 1762. CYT 1062 . ' CYT -1554 .: f Pardlnt SlO lardiht; 320ShT 148 ShT' 151 Print 441-. CYT 1185--i'
I Vo MlSeiLLAHEOUS OATHSAo Faith
AreiteCook : g : .Wl fe of.. Bath . ; Ye oman l.Be#l):
EhT 1126 - :MillT 5 8 8 4 : iCkProl :435i» 4558 YffiProl 203, 360'. -FrT -1555 -
Ac. Faith CGont9d) la hy g fey or
faith
8 fr thsr (yow) fey "'#r felih
.§© in feith
4o parfay
Ipar m# fay) Bo YgQth :
0 9 -galyatiem . - . '•' 1 $ hy my sayaeiotta
• So up peril of my sotal© . V
Thomas8 w|-f© Sumf 1S11City ©ffiolal S W T 3S56 -Plaeeh©• . . HerehT 1505Friar. IBProl ©41Stamoner Frf 1045Host HatiePr©! 131 MkPrel
1930, 1955Pardons PardT ©34Smn^s Priest 1PT 3337Pe.rtelote 1PT 3911Yeoman ■ CYProl. 710Cation Oil 1334Iioathly Lady .WET 10©3a 10© 7 ,,Hest : ... CIProl 9% ParsPwl.;Smmnone r 'Frf •155.1 ■■; • :Franklin " FranklProl §73Chant1©leer HPT 3413 ’Fox .IPT. 3414Yeoman CYT lOtfE#st / ManePfol §9Hanoipie ' .; 'HatiePr#! 30Allan RvT. 4044 V. ;: aHan of Law ; HLProl' l l O . ’Alla HLT 1057Constance MLT 049-©llfamnt STT @30
OenProl 763i HKPrelvlOS@8: FPlpi 3450Loathly Lady ' WBT 124© .
Yeoman. (DeYil) Frf 1424January MerehT 1907, 25©6Amrelims FranklT 1351Stilhourn PardT 615Reveler PardT ©24Merehant®s wt fe. Shf 4IS, .
’Widow .: Frf 161©Yeoman CYT 84®; .lost ManePr©! 5©Hay ■ Her ehT 8371Pertelate . HPT 8944
Do Classleal oath lo Mars Theseus ;
.ProserpinaMT. 1708 3 1747 larehf SS65
E0 Fader
IB at is deed HostF 0 Relies
lo Heed of Crist that is Sm Hayles
• @ 4 the erosi as orossseinte lleyne
133
ho of Bromeholm Miller9s # fiGo Others
ale . and and RostWife of Bath
Yeoman
my thrift my# heed hood
MillerSatmraCanonChaueez
MlZpi 1178 MerohT 3593 MBProl 1957 GenProl 781
Pardf 653
BardT 653 RtT 4386
SfT 873 GenProl" 853WBProl'194 Merohf 1515 Off @39 ManeProl 37 IPT 3968 Shf 451 HyT 4©49 KnT 367© CYf 1534 RvT 4041 .STT 891 SfP 81©
Gf & p« 1 1 9 ante o
APBEEBIX II
S1HEA1T OF. HUGO M G 1 « S DISSERTATION
Hugo Lange8s thesis, ,?Die Tersieherangen "bei Ghaueer" (Berlin: Fo W 0 Meyer, iSSB), may he eonsidered the pioneer study in the field of Ghaueerian oaths* Lange states that affirmations gave medieval, literature, especially the m - maneesp a distinct characteristic* In Ghaueer *s works, • these affirmations conveniently fill out a line or serve as a rhyme word, Lange summarises the problem of his thesis thus.: By whom and in .what manner are affirmations used?
Lange was greatly interested in the grammatical peculiarities of the affirmations. He mentions the prepositions tfby9n ,?ffor??? "on," ^before" as frequently introducing the affirmations9 while prepositions are also omitted entirely In other instancess The shortened infinitive *seth to say.” is also used. He points out that Ghaueer also used complete sentences for an affirmation (Tersleherungessatzel such as TGod help me so *tf.
The bulk of the dissertation consists of citations of affirmations in all of Ghaueer9s works, that is, the works ascribed to Ghaueer in the Morris edition. Expressions involving God are listed first, Lange, like Starr, believes that elaborations of t!by God” give additional emphasis. He feels that the French equivalent ”pardee” had lost its original connotation in England, for in Troilus and Orlseyde
®par&ee* and ®G#d® appear In the same line s He sees n® speeial slgnifieahee In expressions like:®S®d weota® His stmdFs like this sttrveF, shows medieval man$s relnetanee to invoke Jesus .Christ directlyg even in the dismembering oathso
Lange makes little attempt to identify the various saints<, His tabulation omits Saint Frydeswyde3 and he follows Hertzberg’s theory that the Prioresses Saint Ley refers to Saint Louis of Franee (der hellige Ludwig) instead of Saint H o y or lligiuso He also recognizes the fact that the religious culture Influenced the choice of oaths and dis-r cusses affirmations by. relies6 fhe human elements of these expressions such as oaths by relatives are also listed* Finally, affirmations by abstractions such as faith and troth are presented* He considers the Germanic *treuth" synonymous with the Romanic ®faith,® whereas |n this study, faith is listed as an aspect of ©hristiaalty*
He cites several interesting self-imprecations (Selbstversleherungen)3 that is, the speaker’s invoking evil upon himself if he is telling a lie, they are not to© numerous in the Canterbury tales.@ according t@ Lange,
A valid comparison between this study and Lange’s is impossible, at this time, for Lange used the Morris edition and has citations from works no longer included in the Chaucer canon. In view of the differences' in editions,
the student also hesitates to criticise Lange for ascribing
87
tlie perplexing asseveration ’’by that preoious corpus EaarianM to the Monk instead of Harry Bailey* The same holds true for the diserepaney in Gervey?s oatho However $ Lange’s eonelnsion that the varied and oolorftil affirmations .eerrespond with the motley group of characters created by Ghaneer indicates that he appreciated the literary qualities of these expressions*