Printer Friendly

White words, false world: Chaucer's Pandarus and the antifraternal tradition in 'Troilus,' Books I-III.

Pandarus' speech and actions as a servant of the God of Love's servants have already been subjected to some inquisition. D. W. Robertson, Jr, for instance, noted some features of his vocabulary and role as |priest' and |confessor', and more recently Siegfried Wenzel, in his discussion of |Chaucer and the language of contemporary preaching', and J. D. Burnley, in his account of |Chaucer's termes', have given some close attention to religious language and its implications for Pandarus' attitudes and activities.(1) Such scrutiny of this particular strand in the lexis of Troilus tends to support Windeatt's general argument about the contemporary |distinctiveness' of the poem's style and diction.(2)

Within this area of the poem's lexis there may indeed he some quite specific contemporary influences at play - and this is where the friars come in. A considerable amount of work on the antifraternal tradition in Chaucer's time has appeared during the last decade,(3) and there are, I think, grounds for using this context (with its stereotypes and vocabulary) as a way of reading Pandarus' role in relation to Troilus and, particularly, Criseyde. I am, of course, aware of the danger of exaggerating the importance of antifraternalism in fourteenth-century writing and of seeing the figure of the friar |in every bussh or under every tree'. But there is equally, I think, a danger in treating the language of antifraternalism as a self-contained discourse and thus failing to recognize the ways in which it penetrates other discourses of the period.

Pandarus' very first speech in the poem departs significantly from that of his counterpart in Il Filostrato, and it does so by drawing upon the vocabulary of religious experience and behaviour:

O mercy', God! What unhap may this meene?

Han now thus soone Grekes maad yow leene?

Or hastow som remors of conscience,

And art now falle in som devocioun,

And wailest for thi synne and thin offence,

And hast for ferde caught attricioun? (I.552-7)

The words Pandarus uses ironically here - mercy, remors, conscience, devocioun, synne, offence, attricioun - contribute significantly to what Burnley calls the |stream of religious allusion' which has originated near the beginning of the poem with the narrator's assumption of the role of priest or pope of love.(4) Pandarus' role as |priest of love' resembles that of the narrator to a certain degree. Like the narrator, for instance, he switches easily into the mode of preaching, and in both cases the deployment of exempla (|ensaumples') is explicitly brought to our attention. Yet, unlike the narrator, Pandarus in his first scene goes on to play the part of confessor as well. Several of the terms I have noted in his first speech - notably remors of conscience and attricioun are specifically associated with the penitential process. And - in connection with the |distinctiveness' of Chaucer's lexis in Troilus - it is worth noting that both the OED and the MED cite this passage as the earliest evidence for the use of these terms (remors of conscience and attricioun) in English.(5)

Pandarus' role as confessor develops more amply, both in tactics and vocabulary, through the second half of Book 1. He begins by encouraging Troilus to make a full disclosure of his inner state and to |hide' nothing (1.595).(6) He summons his patient to |awake' from his lethargy (1.729-30), urges him away from |despair' (1.779, 813) and towards belief in |bote' (1.763, 782, 832) and |grace' (1.781, 907, 933, 980, 1005) - and he is represented on several occasions as Troilus' spiritual physician (1.857, 1087-91). And, having stirred up the penitent's remorse about his treatment of the God of Love's servants (1.908-31), Pandarus leads him into the breast-beating act of repentance which, as Windeatt points out, is specifically associated with the Confiteor in the Mass:(7)

Now bet thi brest, and sey to God of Love,

|Thy grace, lord, for now I me repente,

If I mysspak, for now myself I love.'

Thus sey with al thyn herte in good entente. (1.932-5)

Such tactics on Pandarus' part place him within a field of activity which as Chaucer and his audience well knew, was densely and busily inhabited by friars. Dominicans and Carmelites were prominent as confessors in the royal and aristocratic households of Chaucer's time.(8) The mendicants had also been the leaders in the confession-manual industry since the early thirteenth century, and Chaucer himself is known to have made substantial use of the Dominican summae in the Parson's Tale.(9)

Pandarus duly goes on to complete the |absolution' process with an admonitory sermon on patience and perseverance (1.953-73) and by going on to register Troilus' admission as a new |convert' to the religious order of love. The significance of this |conversion' is underlined by Pandarus' repeated use (1.999 and 1004) of the same term as the narrator had earlier employed to describe the process: |Blissed be Love, that kan thus folk converte!' (1.308) - and it is further reinforced by Pandarus' reference at this point (1.1001) to Love's lay - the belief, faith or |order' of lovers which Troilus, using the same word (|lay', 1.340) had previously scorned. There can be little doubt that a pattern of religious allusion is being drawn together by Pandarus at this stage and that, as Burnley puts it, |The notion of conversion to a regular order of lovers, which is parallel to the re-dedication of the Christian spirit, is now established in a way which will ensure its endurance throughout the poem.'(10) Moreover, Chaucer's own poetic idiom appears to be drawn to the |mendicant' field of reference in this same passage. For, when Pandarus, having apostolically received Troilus as a convert to the true faith, goes on to envisage him proudly as |the beste post' of Love's religion (1.1000), he is deploying a metaphor (perhaps based on Galatians ii.9) which Chaucer is to use only once again: in his General Prologue portrait of the pilgrim Friar, who - in another context that aligns the religious with the erotic - is said to have been, for his order, |a noble post'.(11)

Pandarus' activities and tactics as |spiritual adviser' continue to be busily, though differently, deployed when, at the beginning of Book II, he turns to his other prospective proselyte, Crisevde. His first visit to his niece (11.78-597) is permeated with references to God and religion; both participants, as Dunning says, |invoke God freely and constantly and not always ... through mere habit'.(12) I should like to develop Dunning|s suggestion a little further and argue that Pandarus' first encounter with his niece, like his first conversation with Troilus, features an unusual number of allusions to the activity and terminology, of preaching and, once again, of confession. For instance, just before he sets out on his mission to Criseyde, his skill in |preaching' about love (rather than practising it himself) is ironically alluded to by the narrator (11.59-60) In the course of the ensuing encounter he twice dignifies his discourse to Criseyde and Troilus with the term |preche' (11-496, 569), and later on he is to characterize the news he brings back to Criseyde as a |sermoun' (11.1115). More specifically, as Wenzel points out, Pandarus, in this first approach to Criseyde uses terms like |proces' (11.268) and |sette' 11.367) which derive from the language of contemporary preaching and it could well be, as Wenzel suggests, |that, in letting him [Pandarus] muse on his proces, Chaucer here characterizes him verbally as a preacher of Love'.(13)

But probably the most striking and complex development of Pandarus' religious (or pseudo-religious) role here in Book II is, once again, in relation to confession. This development occurs towards the end of the conversation, when, in response to Criseyde's question about whether Troilus can |wel speke of love' (11.503), Pandarus goes about things protractedly, if rather obliquely, by describing first how he heard his friend making his solitary |lowe confessioun' to the God of Love and then how the penitent had to be busily |preached at' in order to get him to confess the name of his lady;

He seyde, |Lord, have routhe upon my peyne,

Al have I ben rebell in myn entente;

Now, mea culpa, lord, I me repente!'...

Wyth that he smot his hed adown anon,

And gan to motre, I noot what, trewely ...

And God woot, nevere sith that I was born

Was I so besy no man for to preche,

Ne nevere was to wight so depe isworn,

Or he me told who myghte ben his leche.

(11.523-5,540-1, 568-71)

We are, at these points in the passage, given a powerful reminder of the confessorial role and skill that Pandarus as priest of love has demonstrated already at the end of Book 1. But also - and more insidiously - we and Criseyde are offered a piece of Pandaric fiction, designed, as Donaldson suggested, to impress.(14) For the account of Troilus' solitary confession, as |overheard' by Pandarus, is, so far as we can tell, fictitious, and appears to be, as Bishop claims, |employed to manoeuvre Criseyde into a receptive disposition'.(15) The Roman de la rose scenario - complete with garden and well (11.508) - the high style of Troilus' alleged |lowe confessioun', and the penitent lover's tone and gestures which, as Windeatt notes, |suggest a figure at confession'- none of these features appears in the equivalent part of Il Filostrato, and they all contribute significantly to Pandarus' fictive and manipulative design. Confession, it has been said in another context, is |the great narrative sacrament'(16) and Pandarus' skill in exploiting its potential as such is brilliantly demonstrated as he steers us and Criseyde from the confession that Troilus might have made (11.523-41) to the one that he did make (11.554-71) and then to the confessor's own moving confession of the plainness of the truth within his heart: |Now have I plat to yow myn herte shryven'(11.579). Pandarus' deployment of the terms and tactics of confession here can thus be seen as intrinsic to the strategy whereby he moves from impressing Criseyde and the reader with how well her servant and his spiritual adviser can |speak of love' to making her and us believe (or almost believe) that he and Troilus truly mean |nought but wel' (11.592). Small wonder, then, that Criseyde subsequently ponders over every word of this annunciation and that she |wex somdel astoned in hir thought' (11.601-3).(17)

In Pandarus' proces regarding Criseyde the vocabulary of Love's religion therefore appears to be taking on more richly complex and, indeed, mystifying connotations than those it carried in Book 1. This reflects, I think, the different situation - the less certain kind of power-structure that obtains through most of Book 11, until Pandarus begins more confidently to assume the role of priest and celebrant for both lovers at the end of the book and in the first half of Book 111.(18) Characteristic of this development is the application to Criseyde of a term I have already mentioned with reference to Troilus' |change of heart': namely, converte. Both Pandarus and the narrator, in their role as priests of love in Book 1, have blithely, celebrated the way that Love |can converte' those who, like Troilus, have previously scorned his power.(19) When, however, the same term is used of Criseyde at what, for her, is a crucial stage in Book 11 - just after Antigone's song and just before her dream - its significance is obviously much less definite. We are told at this point that, in response to Antigone's song in praise of love, Criseyde |wex somwhat able to converte' (11-903). The verb itself is, unusually, reflexive - indeed it antedates the reflexive usages listed in the MED.(20) The agency and direction of Criseyde's possible |conversion' are left in doubt - and, by contrast to Book 1, there is no confident pronouncement on the part of Pandarus or the narrator about its validity or purpose.

Dubious and unstable though this situation is, Pandarus' role within it is clearly a significant one - and this is where the antifraternal context may come again to have particular bearing on the relationship between him and Criseyde. For Book 11, I think, hints on a number of occasions that Pandarus' strategies towards his niece are comparable with those of the antifraternal stereotypes. Hence, as Pandarus sets off bright and early on his |erand' at the start of this book, the narrator's jaunty and probably prurient exclamation - |Now Janus, god of entree, thow hym gyde!' (11.77) - invokes, as well as the Roman god, the shade of a familiar figure from the antifraternal tradition: Sir Penetrans Domos.(21) So also do other features of Pandarus' relationship with Criseyde at this stage of the affair. Sir Penetrans and his fellows were traditionally consolers, exploiters or seducers of women and, indeed, of widows. Such is the case already in the biblical source-text for this stereotype (11 Timothy 111.6): |For of these sort are they who creep into houses [penetrantes domos] and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires' (Douay - Rheims translation).

The notion of the friar as this kind of intrusive seducer of wives and widows, of course, recurs ftequently in antifraternal polemic and satire.(22) Indeed, it lies behind certain features in Chaucer's portrayals of both his friars - for instance, the Friar who exercises his |fair langage' on other Chaucerian widows, including the Wife of Bath.(23) But if such a stereotype does have a bearing on Pandarus' activities and strategies, what implications does it carry or Criseyde? Initially Criseyde might seem to be playing along with Pandarus' penetrans domos scenario by emphasizing her own status as a widow and her preference for pious reading-matter - |holy seyntes lyves' - at the start of their encounter (11.114, 117-18) and by crowding her first speeches to him with pious asseverations.(24) The reader with antifraternal texts at the head of his or her bed might therefore think that, at this stage in the relationship with her uncle, Criseyde could have some affinity with the satirical stereotype of the pinzochera - such as the widow whose claims to have |turned to such a good and pious life alongside the friars' are held up to ridicule in Boccaccio's Corbaccio.(25)

Yet at this stage of the relationship, as in his treatment of Criseyde as widow elsewhere in the poem, Chaucer seems to be invoking such stereotypical features only to reject or at least modify them. For, unlike the traditional devotees and victims of the friars, this Criseyde is both perceptive and indignant about her mentor's manipulative strategy. Hence, when the game has eventually been let out of Pandarus' hood and he has at last declared the real purpose of his visit, she turns on him in a speech which owes very little to the corresponding passage in IL Filostrato. In it she denounces the lack of |feyth' and betrayal of trust in |this false worlde' (11.420) and identifies Pandarus' whole strategy in a striking phrase: |Is al this paynted proces sevd - allas! -/ Right for this fyn?' (11.424-5). The phrase |paynted proces' has already attracted a fair amount of attention from editors and critics interested in Pandarus' fictions,(26) and I have already noted Wenzel's association of proces with the language of preaching. But the clerical (or anticlerical) uses of paynted also deserve some particular attention. Peinted (ppl.) is given the following applications in the MED: |of words, language, argument: feigned, deceptive, specious; of clerics: false, deceiving, hypocritical'.(27) It is notable that the two sources given for the |clerical' application of the word in Chaucer's time are both Wycliffite antifraternal texts. In Pierce the Ploughmans Crede the Dominicans are described as ingenious agents of the Devil's deceit:

The divill by his dotage dissaueth the chirche,

And put in the prechours y-paynted withouten. (505-6)

In the other, the Wycliffite Satan and his Priests, the new hypocritical religious orders (meaning the friars) are said to have their habits full of lies, to deal in lies and to be themselves living lies: |feyned & pyntid men of religion'.(29) And it should also be noted that John Gower uses the French equivalent in a very, similar way near the start of his description of friars as false apostles and hypocrites in the Mirour de l'Omme:(30)

Ils ont la langue liberal

Dont la menconge serra peinte,

Ils ont parole belle et queinte

Dont font deceipte a lour aqueinte. (21.233-6)

They have eloquent tongues whose falsehoods are well painted; they make fine

and elegant speeches to deceive those with whom they deal.

If it seems odd to suggest that Chaucer is using the vocabulary and imagery of antifraternal satire to characterize the strategies of persuasion to love, then we should remember that this sort of procedure is even more explicit in one of his most familiar texts: the Roman de la rose. Amongst the figures in the Roman, Ami, Reason and La Vieille have often been associated with Pandarus.(31) Yet, as servant and emissary of the God of love and as the active facilitator of the Lover's progress, Pandarus also shares a marked affinity with that other reverend servant of the God of Love, Friar Faus Semblant OP. For at certain points - especially when Pandarus' strategy towards Criseyde is unmasked, or in those moments when he explicitly or implicitly acknowledges what he is about - there seems to be a marked resemblance between the busy preacher and confessor in Books 1 and 11 of Troilus and the friar who |goes about stealing people's hearts' ('qui va les queurs des gens emblant').(32)

The resemblance continues to develop through Book 111 of the poem, as we approach the consummation that Pandarus so devoutly wishes. To illustrate this development I should like to focus initially on one phrase which occurs twice in this book: |wordes white'. This phrase has, as Barney points out, some affinity with the earlier term |paynted proces'.(33) It occurs first at a crucial point in the renewed |process' whereby Pandarus is trying to persuade Criseyde to admit the allegedly desperate Troilus to her bedchamber. He here (somewhat unguardedly, as we shall see) boasts of how easy it would be for him to fob off the average jealous fool with |a few specious words' (|wordes white'), but asserts that Troilus' noble jealousy presents an altogether different case:

But if a fool were in a jalous rage,

I nolde setten at his sorwe a myte,

But feffe hym with a fewe wordes white. (11.899-901)

The comparison is explicitly designed to flatter Troilus, but its implicit effect is to insult Criseyde's intelligence, as she later realizes. For |wordes white' are also precisely what she, the next morning, declares that Pandarus has been using to her:

|God help me so, ye caused al this fare,

Trowe I,' quod she,' for al youre wordes white.' (111.1566-7)

The phrase does not occur elsewhere in Chaucer, though it seems to have entered into the |Chaucerian' tradition and is hence used in a similar way by Lydgate, Henryson and Douglas.(34) The instance here in |Froilus is also the first use recorded in the OED for sense IO of the adjective white: |fair-seeming, specious, plausible'. Such a meaning is, of course, strongly reinforced by association with Christ's description of the Pharisees as |white: sepulchres' (Matthew XX111.27). That particular text was also commonly applied to the hypocrisy of the friars,(35) and we also find it alluded to in the Roman de la rose, at the point where Faus Semblanz and his companion set off to infiltrate the castle of the Rose.(36)

The association of |whiteness' in this sense with the friars, and especially with mendicant language and rhetoric, is, once again, recurrent in the Wycliffite antifraternal texts. Wyclif|s own Exposicio Textus Matthei XXIII, ch. X11, cites the |whited sepulchre' passage from verse 27 and glosses it as follows:(37)

Ista verba videntur pertinenter posse applicare istis sectis noviter adinventis.

Sunt enim similes sepulchris dealbatis, quia contra ordinacionem Domini

ponunt sanctitatem suam consistere in signis extrinsecis ut in habitibus,

coloribus, figuris et aliis falsis signis.

These words can be seen to apply especially to these newly emerged sects.

These are indeed like whited sepulchres, for, contrary to God's commandment,

they make their holiness reside in outward forms, such as dress, rhetorical

devices and figures and other false appearances.

The |newly emerged sects', as the rest of the chapter and Wycliffite parlance in general make clear, are the friars - and it is worth noting in the present context that the notion of specious |whiteness' here applies not only to the habits of some mendicants but to their words (|coloribus, figuris') as well. The vernacular Wycliffite Tractatus de Pseudo Freris (presumably influenced by the Exposicio) makes a similar point rather more tersely. In chapter 11 it relates the

superfluous or hypocritical observances of some friars to the text in Matthew XX111.27, and later, in chapter V111, goes on to make the same connection between the biblical text and the mendicants' words: |Bothe colours & figuris ben shapen to deceyve the folc ... & herfore seith crist of pharisees that "thei ben blaunchid sepulcris".'(38) Criseyde|s recognition of Pandarus' use of such |colours & figuris' thus shares some features with the language of antifraternal polemic. It also has at least one key term in common with the vocabulary of antifraternal satire. For during that same intimate morning-after scene where she identifies the deception behind the |wordes white', the guards are (temporarily) down, and she addresses her uncle's duplicity directly: |Fox that ye ben! God yeve youre herte kare!' (111.1565).

The whole long tradition of Reynard|s deviousness is behind this metaphor, but a more specific influence upon it could be the frequent association of the |fox religious' (to use Varty's phrase) with the friars.(39) Varty makes it clear that |the preaching fox of the fourteenth century was usually an itinerant friar'.(40) The (sometimes literal) kinship between Reynard the Fox and the mendicant orders, especially the Dominicans and Franciscans, is highlighted in a number of Reynard romances of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, several of which Chaucer is likely to have known.(41) And in the Roman de la rose as well, the friar Faus Semblanz speaks with no small pride of his hypocrisy and foxerie - the word that is used in the Chaucerian translation.(42) The precise tone of Criseyde's reproof in the Troilus passage is hard to judge but her use of the word fox and the kind of connotations it carries suggest (as does her reference to |wordes white' two lines later) a perception of her uncle's fictions and fabrications that is far from genial. So also does the perspective that is opened up by her last words in this scene: |O, whoso seeth yow, knoweth yow ful lite!' (111.1568).

After such knowledge, what forgiveness? Criseyde then (as the narrator asserts with an uneasy twitch of gallows humour) follows the example of the crucified Christ and extends pardon even to her Pandare - Pharisee (111.1577-8). And later on, in the closing stages of Book IV, she even begins herself to deploy some of the Pandaric priestly vocabulary when proposing strategies for outwitting or (as she puts it) |converting' the priest her father (IV-1412).

Troilus does not, however, draw specifically upon the discourse of antifraternalism much beyond the point (in Book 111) where the foxerie of Pandarus' purposes is recognized. Yet an echo of it does return at the very end of the whole work, as part of the final series of recognitions in Book V. Here the narrator - again somewhat like a passionate preacher - is |moved' to relate his theme of deception to

wommen that bitraised be

Thorugh false folk - God yeve hem sorwe, amen!

That with hire grete wit and subtilte

Bytraise yow.(V.1780-3)

These lines, of course, point forwards to The legend of Good Women, but they also, I think, hark back to the antifraternal tradition and the complex use of it that the present poem has made. |Periculum est in falsis fratribus' (11 Corinthians XI.26) was an admonitory text that figured frequently in that tradition(43) - and Chaucer's priest of Love glosses it here in a way that bears particularly upon Pandarus and his brotherhood.

As the conclusion to Troilus implies, there are several larger developments and issues in the poem which the antifraternal discourse serves to articulate and emphasize. For example, there is, during the first three books, a development in the representation of Pandarus' |priestly' role which takes him from being a relatively straightforward |confessor' in the first to serving a much more devious, yet more specifically |friar-like' function in the second and third. This development is signalled by Pandarus' increasing exploitation of the confessorial relationship (an abuse of which the mendicants were constantly accused) and by Criseyde|s adoption, when she sees the game in her uncle's hood, of some vivid terms that recur also in the antifraternal tradition. Moreover, the fact that Criseyde, who appeared initially to fit the stereotype of the friars' female client or victim, actually becomes more akin to the critics of the friars, can be seen as part of the larger process whereby the widow-stereotype inherited from Il Filostrato comes to be transformed in Troilus. And, finally, the whole |process' of manipulation by Pandarus and Criseyde's awareness of it lend further depth and precision to the poem's engagement with the issues of mutability and instability. For the sense of the |brotel wele of mannes joie unstable' is, at least in the first three books of the poem, more highly developed in Criseyde than it is in either Pandarus or Troilus.(44) It is only Criseyde, early, in the poem, and the narrator, at the end, who use the phrase |false world'.(45) And her understanding of Pandarus' painted process and white words informs Criseyde's increasing and ultimately devastating perception of that world.

Centre for Medieval Studies, N. R. HAVELY University of York


(1) See D. W. Robertson, Jr, A Preface to Chaucer (Princeton, NJ, 1962), pp. 479-80; S. Wenzel, |Chaucer and the language of contemporary preaching', Studies in Philology, LXXIII (1976), 138-61; J. D. Burnley, |Chaucer's termes', Yearbook of English Studies, VII (1977), 53-67. All my quotations from Chaucer's works follow the text of The Riverside Chaucer, ed. by Larry D. Benson (Boston, Mass., 1987). (2) Geoffrey Chaucer: |Troilus & Criseyde'. A new edition of |The Book of Troilus', ed. by B. A. Windeatt (London; New York, 1984), p. 28. (3) E.g., Penn R. Szittya, The Antifraternal Tradition in Medieval Literature (Princeton, NJ, 1986); Wendy Scase, |Piers Plowman' and the New Anticlericalism (Cambridge, 1999). (4) Burnley, |Chaucer's termes', p. 65. (5) Both, however, also cite Trevisa's use of the phrase |remorse of conscience' in his translation of Higden's Polychronicon, which is also of the 1380s. (6) The Parson|s Tale, X 320, emphasizes that in confession |Al moot be seyd, and no thyng excused ne hyd ne forwrapped.' (7) Troilus and Criseyde, ed. Windeatt, note on line 932 (p.141). (8) For the Dominicans' role as royal confessors, see D. Knowles, The Religious Orders in England, Vol. I (Cambridge, 1948), p. 167; and for the Carmilites similarly, see ibid., Vol. II (Cambridge, 1955), p. 145. (9) See H. G. Pfander, |Some medieval manuals of religious instruction', JEGP, XXXV (1936), 243-58; G. Dempster's chapter on the Parson|s Tale in Sources and Analogues of the Canterbury Yales, ed. by W. F. Bryan and G. Dempster (repr. London, 1958), pp. 723-60; and especially Wenzel's introduction to his notes on the Tale in I|he Riverside Chaucer (pp.956-7). (10) Burnley, |Chaucer's termes', pp. 65-6. (11) General Prologue, I 214. (12) T. P. Dunning, |God and man in Troilus and Criseyde', in English and Medieval Studies Presented to J. R. R. Tolkien on tbe Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. by N. Davis and C. L. Wrenn (London, 1962), p. 170. (13) Wenzel, |Chaucer and the language of contemporary preaching', p. 154. (14) Chaucer|s Poetry, ed. by E. T. Donaldson (New York, 1958), p. 972. (15) Ian Bishop, Chaucer's |Troilus and Criseyde': a Critical Study (Bristol, 1981), p. 56. (16) C. O|Cuilleanain, Religion and the Clergy in Boccaccio's |Decameron' (Rome, 1984), p. 148. (17) There could perhaps be an allusion here to the Virgin Mary's immediate response to Gabriel's greeting (Luke 1.29). (18) See, e.g., 11.1503, 1638, 1731, 1733-4; 111.61, 185-9, 703-4, 913, 1138-40. (19) TC, 1.309, 999, 1004. (20) See MED, s.v. |converte', vb, 2(c). (21) See Szittya, The Antifraternal Tradition, pp. 58-61. (22) William of Saint-Amour, for example, alludes to it in the Collectiones, printed in his Opera Omnia (Constance [for Paris], 1632), p. 196. So also does Jehan le Fevre in his translation of Matheolus' Lamentationes, ed. by A.-G. Van Hamel (Paris, 1892-1905), line 998. The friars in Boccaccio's Corbaccio are described as |deeply pious and compassionate men who give comfort to widows' (|santissimi e misericordiosi uomini ... e consolatori delle vedove') (Giovanni Bacaccio: opere in versi, |Corbaccio', trattatello in laude di Dante, prose Latine, epistole, ed. by P. G. Ricci (Milan; Naples, 1965), p. 538). Wyclif, in his De Fundatione Sectarum, ch. vi, refers to, how the friars supposedly |deturpant ... feminas' (John Wiclif's Polemical Works in Latin, ed. by R. Buddensieg, Vol. I (London, 1883), p. 36). So also, more graphically, do several of the English antifraternal lyrics - e.g., nos. 65 (lines 37-96) and 67 (lines 21- 4) in Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries, ed. by R. H. Robbins (New York, 1959). The accusation is incorporated at several points in the anti-mendicant section of Gower|s Mirour de l'Omme (lines 21,249 -76, 21,373-84), in The Complete Works of John Gower, ed. by G. C. Macaulay, Vol. I (Oxford, 1899). And it features in Chaucer's portrayals of both his friars: Friar Hubert in the general Prologue, I 210-14, 253-5, and the |curteis', sparrow-chirping Friar John in the Summoner's Tale, III 1802-9. (23) See General Prologue, 1 210-17, 253-5, and the tone of his remarks to the Wife of Bath at the end of her Prologue (III 829-31, 856) and the beginning of his Tale (III 1270-7). (24) TC, 11.113, 114, 115, 123, 127, 133. (25) Corbaccio, ed. Ricci, p. 541. Boccaccio, in Il Filostrato, was first to identify Criseida as a widow (she is a pucele in Benoit), and he makes some play with both the antifeminist and the anticlerical features of the stereotype. For instance, Part II of Il Filostrato, when Criseida expresses concern for the |crown' of her honour (st. CXXXIV), Pandaro sardonically replies that such crowns are of the kind |that priests praise when they cannot deprive the wearers of them' (st.CVXXXV - my translation). (26) William Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity (Harmondsworth, 1961), pp. 62-3, found the phrase rich - perhaps over-rich - in meanings and allusions. Burnley, |Chaucer's termes', p. 64, reject Empson's deliberate metanalysis' and emphasizes the |rhetorical reference' of the word paynted (p. 64). And S. Barney, |Suddenness and process in Chaucer', Chaucer Review, XVI (1981), 18-37 (p. 33), points out that Criseyde's phrase |nicely joins the schemes of plot to the colors of language'. (27) MED. s.v. |peinted', ppl. 6(c). (28) Pierce the Ploughmans Crede, ed. by W. W. Skeat, EETS, os, 30-1 (London, 1867). (29) From How Satan and his Priests nd feigned Religious cast by three Cursed Heresies to destroy all good Living and maintain all manner of Sin, in The English Works of Wyclif Hitherto Unprinted, ed. by F.D. Matthew, EETS, os, 39 (London, 1880), p. 268. See (30) In Works, ed. Macaulay. (31) See, e.g., C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1958), pp. 180-1. (32) Le Roman de la rose, ed. F. Lecoy, 3 vols. CFMA (Paris, 1976-82), line 10,438. (33) Barney's note on line 901, in The Riverside Chaucer (p. 1041). (34) See Lydgate's |Troy Book', ed. by Bergen, EETS, ES, 103 (London, 1908), 111.4272; Henryson's Fables, line 601, in The Poems of Robert Henryson, ed. by Denton Fox (Oxford, 1981); and Douglas's Aenis, I, XI, 34, in Virgil's Aeneid, translated ... by Gavin Douglas, ed. by D.F. C. Coldwell (Edinburg; London, 1957). (35) See Szittya, The Antifraternal Tradition, esp. pp. 178-80. (36) Roman de la rose, ed. Lecoy, line 11,983; Chaucer's Romaunt of the Rose, line 7333. Note also |whyte' in line 6261 and |pale' lines 7387-7400 of the English version, and the original's use of |blanc' and |pale' in this context (12018, 12021, 12040 and 12042). (37) In Johannis Wyclif Opera Minora, ed. by J. Loserth (London, 1913), p. 347. (38) English Works of Wyclif, ed. Matthew, p. 315. (39) Kenneth Varty, Reynard the Fox: a study of the Fox in Medieval English Art (Leicester, 1967). (40) See ibid., p. 55. On the fox as deceptive mendicant preacher in the visual art of the period, see ibid. pp. 54, 56, and plates 75-7, 86. (41) Notably the late thirteen-century Renart le Bestourne, Le Couronnement de Renart and Renart le Nouvel and the early fourteenth-century Renart le Contrefait. On the antifraternal features of these texts, see J. Flinn, Le Roman de Renart dans la litterature francaise et dans les litteratures estrangeres au moyen age (Toronto, 1963), pp. 191-8, 208-10, 322-3, 424-5. (42) Chaucer's Romaunt of the Rose, line 6795; the original has renardie (Roman de lar rose, ed. Lecoy, line 11,493). (43) See Szittya, The Antifraternal Tradition, pp. 110, 121, 171, 181. (44) See. e.g., 11.778-98; 111.813-36. (45) See 11.420 (Criseyde); V. 1832 (the narrator).
COPYRIGHT 1992 Society for the Study of Mediaeval Languages and Literature
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1992 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Havely, N.R.
Publication:Medium Aevum
Date:Sep 22, 1992
Previous Article:Juan Manuel's 'Cronica Abreviada' and Alphonsine historiography.
Next Article:Reginald Pecock, John Carpenter and John Colop's 'common-profit' books: aspects of book ownership and circulation in fifteenth-century London.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters