Pardon His Sexuality

Last December I mentioned that I studied Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Canterbury Tales” at college. I still dip into it now and again, always reading it in its original Middle English. Chaucer is often called the father of English Poetry. He was one of the first poets to write in English rather than in French which was the written language of the English court at the time, or Latin, the written language of the Church. Even further back in this blog I revealed that it was Chaucer and a gay friend, the poet Sir John de Clanvowe, who created St. Valentine’s Day.

“The Canterbury Tales” consist of a series of tall tales and allegorical stories told by a group of pilgrims on their way from London to Canterbury. The characters were all caricatures of familiar stereotypes of Chaucer’s time, though some of their occupations are obscure to say the least. The Knight, the Miller and the Friar present no problem (because Chaucer doesn’t give them personal names I’ll use a capital first letter when referring to the pilgrim and a lower-case first letter when referring to their profession). But what did the Franklin, Manciple, or Reeve do? Today we’ll look at two of the pilgrims and discover how Chaucer presented their sexuality and gender.

First, the Pardoner. In the medieval Church bishops appointed men to go from church to church issuing pardons or indulgencies. These were documents recording a person’s admission and repentance of sin. By the time of “The Canterbury Tales” many pardoners were selling fake indulgencies and keeping the money for themselves. Some also sold fake religious relics, such as a chicken bone they claimed was a saint’s finger. Another duty of the pardoners was to collect alms and money for charity. Chaucer tells us that his Pardoner money for the Hospital of Blessed Mary of Rounceval at Charing Cross in London (long since demolished to widen the road at one end of Northumberland Avenue at Trafalgar Square). This hospital was at the centre of a scandal involving the theft of alms money by the hospital proctors. Chaucer is making it clear that the Pardoner is not to be trusted.

Chaucer introduces his pilgrims in the General Prologue. After mentioning that the Pardoner is a friend of the Summoner (more about him later) Chaucer describes the Pardoner as follows (in my translation):

“This Pardoner had hair as yellow as wax,
But smooth it hung like a clump of flax;

Hanging in small strands these locks he had,

And over his shoulders they over-spread,

But in long, thin strands one by one.

As for a hood, to look more attractive, he wore none,

For it was packed in his knapsack all the while.

He thought he rode wearing the latest style

With flowing hair, except for a cap his head was bare,

Such staring eyes he had, like a hare.

A pilgrim badge was sewn into his cap.

He carried a small pouch in a large pocket

Full of pardons from Rome.

He had a voice as high-pitched as a goat.

He had no beard, nor will he ever have,

As smooth as he had just have a shave.

I believe he was gelding or a mare.”

To medieval readers this physical description gave them no reason to question the Pardoner’s gender or sexual identity. His hair, voice and beardless chin all indicated to them that this pilgrim was a eunuch or an effeminate man, what we might describe in our modern labels as intersex or homosexual.Over the past hundred years scholars have analysed the Pardoner’s gender and sexuality. The biggest clue given by Chaucer is the final line, “I believe he was a gelding or a mare”. A gelding is a castrated horse, and a mare is a female horse, of course, clearly indicating a eunuch and effeminate man. The popular medical opinions at that time suggested eunuchs were cunning and devious which when added to the corruption attributed to his profession makes the Pardoner come across as a very unpleasant character.

Once scholars had looked at the Pardoner’s gender and sexuality they began looking at his relationship with another pilgrim, the Summoner, also a church official. As the name suggests a summoner issues summons to people called to appear before church courts (usually for things like adultery or heresy). Like pardoners, summoners often took bribes and had a very corrupt image. As far as Chaucer’s Summoner is concerned there couldn’t be a character of a more opposite physical appearance to the Pardoner. It seems strange that these two characters could ever become friends.

he Summoner is described in the General Prologue immediately before the Pardoner as follows (again my own translation):

A Summoner was with us in that place

Who had a fiery-red and cherubic face,

All pimpled he was, and his eyes were narrow,

As horny and lecherous as is a sparrow.

With black scabby eyebrows and straggly beard

His face was one that children feared.

There was no mercury, lead compound or sulphur,

Borax, white lead tincture or cream of tartar,

No ointment that could cleanse or bite

To rid him of his pustules white,

Nor of the boils on his cheeks.”

Not a man pleasing to look at. Chaucer also says that he ate a lot of garlic, onions and leeks washed down with red wine. It is in this inebriated state that the Summoner seems to spend all of this time on the road to Canterbury. I should explain here the brief reference to a sparrow. The idea that sparrows were lecherous is centuries old and no-one really knows why the birds have gained this reputation. Thankfully this reputation has disappeared since Chaucer’s time.

So, why would an academic think that the unpleasant, smelly Summoner would be the sexual partner of the Pardoner, for that is what they have suggested? The answer lies in the lines which come a little afterwards when the Pardoner is introduced. Again, here’s my translation of the Middle English text:

“With him rode a gentle Pardoner

Of Rouncival, his friend and companion,

Who had come straight from Rome.

Very loudly he sang “Come hither, my love, to me!”

The Summoner provided him with a strong bass line,

There wasn’t a trumpet that can make half the sound.”

These two pilgrims are singing a love song, and that’s what prompts some scholars to think they are partners. Added to this are the words “stif burdoun” in the original text which I, following others, have translated as “strong bass line”.

One theory put forward is that “stif burdoun” (“stif” is the same as “stiff”) is slang for a sexual act based purely, it seems to me, on the interpretation of “stif” and how you interpret the Summoner giving it to the Pardoner. Modern usage of “stiff” in relation to sexual acts is commonplace, and this presents an obvious interpretation. This theory is tenuous in my view.

Added to this tenuous interpretation is the meaning of the word “burdoun”. This was indeed an old word for a bass accompaniment to a song in medieval times. But it was also one of the medieval variant spellings of “burden”, meaning a donkey or ass. Donkeys, asses and horses have always been popularly regarded as being particularly well-endowed, so the interpretation of “stif burdoun” as “stiff donkey” could be seen by some to imply a sexual act.

Whether it is medieval double entendre or a modern misinterpretation there’s nothing else to link the Pardoner and the Summoner sexually. As for the idea that they are singing a love song to each other, all I can say is that I have lived in a city centre from over 20 years and have often been out and about in the pubs and clubs on a Friday and Saturday night. Without exception there has been groups or couples of men staggering around the streets singing popular modern love songs. They are singing together, not to each other. This is also my interpretation of the song of the Pardoner and the Summoner.

To end this rather lengthy entry, here’s a video of the Pardoner’s Tale from the animated series of “The Canterbury Tales” produced a couple of decades ago. It’s in modern English, though I can’t say it’s a completely accurate translation. What is accurate is the visual portrayals of the Pardoner and the Summoner.