Abigail L Morris

ENGL 6116
Dr. Nicole Sidhu
October 28th, 2013
Annotated Bibliography for The Summoners Tale
Aiken, Pauline. "The Summoner's Malady." Studies in Philology 33.1 (1936): 40-44. JSTOR.
Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Unlike most criticism of The Summoners Tale, this article focuses not on the tale, but
on the teller. Aiken chooses to take a medical approach with the summoner and suggests
that Chaucer may have consulted a physician as reference for his summoners malady.
She offers the details Chaucer gives his reader regarding the life style and medicinal
choices of the summoner as evidence of this medical study. It is further suggested that the
disease may have been interpreted as a form of leprosy, but is, in reality, scabies. The
argument made for scabies becomes more absolute and undeniable as each aspect of
Chaucers description of the summoner is studied in relation to not only his era, but also
by accounts of subsequent years. Though not necessarily valuable on the surface, this
reading of the Summoner as a story teller may shed still more light on the anger he has
toward the friar once it has been considered in light of literary discourse more so than
medical.
Beichner, Paul E. "Baiting the Summoner." Modern Language Quarterly 22.4 (1961): 367-76.
ECU One Search. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
In this article Beichner refers to The Summoners Tale as a masterpiece of baiting by
Chaucer (367). To express this idea more fully, he then renders the friar and summoner as
contestants in a sparring match with the host as umpire. The rest of the article is further
explication of the events as they unfold in the tale itself, the prologue, and the many
disruptions caused by the friar and summoner. Unfortunately, the Beichners case is less
compelling than the arguments presented by critics because it lacks depth. The entire
basis of the authors position is found in surface features of the tale.
Clark, Roy P. "Doubting Thomas In Chaucer's Summoner's Tale." The Chaucer Review 11.2
(Fall, 1976): 164-78. JSTOR. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Clarks article argues that the characters of Thomas and Friar John are representative
divisions of St. Thomas the Apostle. As evidence to support his theory, he refers to
various portions of the biblical life and legend of St. Thomas, such as the scene of
Thomas being groped by the Friar being a parodic revisitation of the groping of Christ by
the Apostle. Clark also uses the etymology of the name Thomas to further validate his
position, claiming that Chaucer would have known Thomas translated as twin, and that

Morris 2

Chaucer intended Thomas to be a mirror image of the dissembling friar (169). Thus
Thomas in the tale serves as the biblical Doubting Thomas, and the friar as Thomas of
India. The author concludes by admitting the weakness of his argument overall.
However, Peter Clarks argument is not completely unfounded, and it serves as a
potential starting point for further scholarship that investigates the motives of Chaucer in
choosing the names of characters.
Crane, Susan. "Cat, Capon, and Pig in "The Summoner's Tale"." Studies in the Age of Chaucer
34.1 (2012): 319-24. ECU One Search. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
In evoking specific animals as imagery in the tale, Crane believes Chaucer succeeds in
conveying further meaning than what it would possess devoid of such moments. She cites
specifically the scene of the friar displacing the housecat and likens the displacer to the
cat. She also posits that this displacement serves to extend the domestic disruption caused
by the friar. She further posits that this enhances the readers perception of Friar John as
devoid of true compassion. While this is certainly a unique take, it is Cranes
consideration of the other beasts included that expose the Friars greatest faults. To
accomplish this she compares his values to those of traditional medieval Franciscans and
thus further exposes the friars spiritual weaknesses that serve to enhance the satiric
nature of the tale. This, above all, expresses the necessity of historical knowledge when
conducting an analysis of Chaucers pilgrims and the tales they choose.
Finlayson, John. "Chaucer's "Summoner's Tale": Flatulence, Blasphemy, and the Emperor's
Clothes." Studies in Philology 104.4 (2007): 455-70. JSTOR. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
A non-dramatist critic, John Finlayson revisits the traditional critical reception of The
Summoners Tale as a fabliau and more recent criticism that evaluates the tale as
biblical allegory in order to develop a more unified critique that explores the multiple
facets of the whole tale rather than limiting critical scope. Finlayson contends that the tale
bears the traditional structure of a fabliau, but with a reversed outcome. He further notes
that, though dramatic and quite detailed, the friars description is a portrait of a trade,
not an individual, and the sexual content usually present in a fabliau only appears to be
missing from this tale (459). To offer proof of this statement as fact, Finlayson directly
references several passages and points out the sexual tone and connotations contained in
them. He then expresses the folly of previous critics who casts the tale as Pentecostal
allegory, an assessment on their parts which separates the tale from the teller, author, and
reality of the situation by suggesting that a common audience of the age would have
automatically associated the friar with the Franciscans specifically, even though such an
affiliation is never alluded to in the tale. This article assesses the tale as a whole and
grants the reader insight into the more complex reality of the tale than would be seen
through the narrow visions of other critics.
Harper, Stephen. "Notes and Queries." Notes and Queries 46.1 (1991): 12-14. ECU One Search.
Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

Morris 3

In this short article, Harper argues that the Summoners squire, Jankyn, secures the tale as
anti-fraternal satire. He uses historical evidence of the role court jesters played in their
service to the king to prove this position. Jankyn adheres to the traditional role that casts
him as an artificial fool which explains why the squire is able to speak so freely and
become involved in political power struggle. He suggests that this casting is significant
because it allows for a character that, like Chaucer was able to use satire and humour to
convey politically motivated messages. Unlike other critical assessments of this tale,
Harper seeks only to grant realism and substance to a character whose position within the
tale often seems to be overlooked.
Hayes, Mary. "Privy Speech: Sacred Silence, Dirty Secrets in the "Summoner's Tale"." The
Chaucer Review 40.3 (2006): 263-88. JSTOR. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Returning to its religious context, Mary Hayes reflects on Chaucers representing sacred
verbal performances as it can be perceived in relation to Eucharistic prayers (264). She
then explains how such rites were accomplished in that age. Her argument is divided into
two parts, the first of which centers on the evidence of Friar Johns references to the
Silent Canon. The second portion of her article discusses the reactions from the lay
people after the friar has finished sermonizing. The point Hayes seeks to prove that
Chaucer had a desire to examine notions of sacred speech and its human speakers that
underlie the Canons silent recitation (265). Much of this argument is based on the use
of the word privetee which is used in the eras religious text in direct reference to the
Eucharist Canon.
Merrill, Thomas F. "Wrath and Rhetoric in "The Summoner's Tale"." Texas Studies in Literature
and Language 4.3 (Autumn, 1962): 341-50. JSTOR. Web. 14 Oct. 2013.
Merrill examines The Summoners Tale in relation to the whole of The Canterbury
Tales, particularly the digression of the friar into his extended tirade on the deadly sin of
anger. He posits that the digression serves an important function in the structural
relationship between the two quarrelers and also serves as an element of cohesion
amoung several of the tales (350). As a reactionary ridiculing of the Huberds previously
expressed anger, the digression is commenting on Huberds inability to avoid the sin of
anger, the preaching techniques of the friars in general, and the consequences of
hypocrisy. Merrills assessment is an excellent reminder that Chaucers tales can rarely, if
ever, truly stand alone. As such, this articles greatest success is its ability to remind the
reader that Chaucers work never lacks intention.
O'Brien, Timothy D. ""Ars-Metrik": Science, Satire, and Chaucer's Summoner." Mosaic 23.4
(Fall, 1990): 1-22. JSTOR. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
By far one of the most interesting and convincing arguments for logical discourse of
Fragment III, OBrien contends that previous scholars who were unable to see past the
religious connotations of The Summoners Tale have done the tale a disservice. To
understand Chaucers intent, the works he produced cannot be separated from the era in
which he produced them. During the period over which Chaucer wrote his Tales, the

Morris 4

dominant scientific interests were in mechanics, medical investigations of wind and

expanding gases, and demonology discourse. OBrien then provides detailed support for
this theory of intent by explicating the relationships between many passages of the tale to
science. He also expands upon the evidence presented in The Summoners Tale by
finding similar associations throughout the other tales within the fragment, and even
proving it as a Chaucerian device by its inclusion in other tales by Chaucer and other
writers of the age.
Zietlow, Paul N. "In Defense of the Summoner." The Chaucer Review 1.1 (Summer, 1966): 4-19.
JSTOR. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.
Zietlow begins by presenting a backdrop of previous Summoners Tale scholarship
upon which he lays the foundation of his own interpretation. While he admits that most
scholars agree Chaucers friar told the better tale, he insists they had all been mistaken in
allowing the structural superiority of The Friars Tale to obscure the very real triumph
of the Chaucers summoner in The Summoners Tale. The summoner created by the
Friar for his tale is a reflection of the Friars own failings, but the Summoners Friar John
is readily identifiable as Chaucers friar. Zietlow further argues that the Friar is unable
to control the situation of his relationship to the Summoner because he shares the fault
of his own summoner in hearing and noticing only what he wants to. His sermon at the
end of his tale shows that Chaucers friar didnt even understand his own tale, even as the
Summoner quickly reveals he, himself, had. This argument enables readers to see the
Summoner as not only more clever than Friar John, but as decidedly more despicable.

Morris 5

Critical Concerns in a Century of The Summoners Tale Discourse

The critical scholarship of Geoffrey Chaucers The Summoners Tale has experienced
some interesting variation over the last hundred years. Until the latter part of the fifties most
scholars regarded the tale as a fabliau because of the fart and the sexual ribaldry of the exchange
between Friar John, Thomas, and his wife. As such, it tended to be compared to other known
fabliau, but beyond the fabliauesque nature of the tale, other early twentieth century critics
analyzed the tale as a parody of Pentecost and the twelve biblical apostles. They also examined
in depth the biblical allusions that weigh down the latter half of the tale. In fact, most of the
scholarship before the 1960s focused prominently on the sermonizing within the tale, and tended
to ignore other aspects.
By the beginning of the 1960s critics like Beichner, Merrill, and Zeitlow become the
dominant voices of Summoners Tale discourse. This also seems to be the age of greatest
analytic variation by such critics. Some examined the tale as a sparring match between the Friar
and Summoner. In rendering the tale a contest, they were forced to also select the winner. More
often than not, the win was claimed for the Friar. Many argued and presented valid evidence
showing that the Friars tale was more stable, and it was far too often this structural dominance
that allowed for the Friars victory. However, perhaps because of the dissention common in the
60s, a few critics felt compelled to rail against the preferential argument of their fellows. For
instance, Paul Zietlow, in his article In Defense of the Summoner, uses the arguments of his
peers to develop his own position in the debate.
Zietlow views the Summoner as the ultimate winner, and he believes the common flaw of
the other critics interpretations is the fact that they ignore the overall design of the pilgrim
friars summoner, and the pilgrim summoners Friar John. Zeitlows case is built on the critical

Morris 6

work of Thomas Merrill which examined the two mens tales in conjunction with their portraits,
and their interactions with other characters and characters stories. By proving the cohesive
aspects of the tale, Merrill lays the foundation of Zeitlows ideas. Zeitlow contends that the Friar
fails in his tale because he allows the summoner of his tale to too closely mirror the friar as an
individual. He then goes on to explain how aspects generally regarded as flaws of the summoner
and his tale are misinterpreted. The seeming lack of control over the tale and the Friars
sermonizing is, in reality, a reflection of Chaucers friar because the pilgrim friar is actually very
well represented by the Summoners Friar John.
Zeitlow also succeeds in conveying the idea that Chaucers Friar does indeed come
across as clueless of the implications of his own tale. Zeitlow posits that the Friar displays
irrefutable evidence of his lacking any understanding of the message conveyed by his tale. The
Summoners justifiable anger is then issued as proof that he, the pilgrim summoner, has actually
understood everything about the tale with complete clarity. It also shows that the summoner
pilgrim is not guilty of hearing only what he wants to hear, an argument formerly used by critics
in favor of the Friar as victor scenario, but, rather, the pilgrim friar is the one ultimately revealed
as only hearing that which he so chooses.
The 1970s and 80s saw the parodies of Pentecost argument revisited by notable critics
Allan Levitan and Bernard Levy, but also the introduction of etymological associations of the
name Thomas and the idea of divided personalities. In his 1976 article, Doubting Thomas in
Chaucers Summoners Tale, Roy Clark offers a wealth of biblical support as evidence that
Chaucer used the name Thomas for the character Friar John angers along with a consistent
repetition of biblical allusions to St. Thomas the Apostle to effectively represent the division of
the Apostles life. This includes an oft repeated association of Doubting Thomass probing of

Morris 7

Christs wounds with Friar Johns groping of Old Thomas. The 80s also saw an increase in social
and morality discourse of the tale and a few explorations of the Summoner as a portrait of trade
and craft rather than an individual.
In the 1990s cultural historians claimed the lead in Summoners Tale discourse. As such,
the fragment as a whole was recasts in a scientific light. The critics began considering the tales in
a more decidedly historical context that examined the scientific research undertaken during
Chaucers age. The scientific interests at the time ranged from an intensely widespread study of
wind and gas, to the sudden intrigue of mechanization and the man as machine, to the heavily
debated truths of divisibility that led to compasses, the wheel of false religion, astrolabes, and
the twelve part division of the winds. In the course of their work, critics in the 90s looked to
The Summoners Tale with a fresh perspective that saw the wheel dividing Thomass fart as
definitive proof of Chaucers interest in the science of the time, and his desire to fairly represent
the important cultural pursuits of his nations people. The division question faced in the tale was
no longer just a representation of the twelve apostles, but another voice in the debate over
divisibles. The fart itself, no longer just a commentary intended as parodic humour, became a
further study of the medieval medical intrigue of expanding gases and the body as a mechanical
device. The fart couple with the division by way of the wheel was even seen by Timothy OBrien
as a combination of the expanding gas, divisible wind, and mechanization studies that Chaucer
would have been witness to.
A variation of the discourse surrounding the tale set in the 1930s displayed a similar
scientific question of medical understanding. Pauline Aiken and a few other critics began looking
more closely at Chaucers description of his summoner. In her article, The Summoners
Malady, Aiken reveals that the description, every detail of it, proves that the Summoner

Morris 8

suffered from Scabies, a disease that would have born great similarity to a variety of lepersy
prevalent at the time.
The most modern discourse is based on the subject of domesticity and disruption, but the
most intriguing explorations of The Summoners Tale remains the comparison of the fragment
itself to the scientific pursuits of the Chaucerian era, and the presentation of the Summoner as the
victor in the Friar/Summoner dispute. Overall, the Friar as victor and the religious discourse are
the most common areas of critical interest during the last century of Chaucers The Summoners
Tale scholarship. Surprisingly, I was unable to locate any analysis of the tale that focused on
fabliaux origin.