When I read the Canterbury Tales in high school, my English teacher brought up a rather interesting part of the General Prologue. When Chaucer describes these inseparable pilgrims, the Summoner and the Pardoner, he says they are the most corrupt of any of the other travelers. They are both officers of the Church, yet neither follow the "guidelines", or beliefs, that come with the job. The Summoner, being the man who brings in the accused to the ecclesiastical court, is one scary man. He has a face so scarred that it frightens children and a drinking habit so bad that makes him very irritable. I would say we could find a better guy for the job. Then there is the Pardoner. This beardless, long haired fellow is a high figure within the Church. This guy is very much a fraud, especially with his "holy" veil. He also loves to keep those charitable "donations" for himself. So yes, we have two horrible men picked to do civic, god-like duties. I think the lady down the street,baking cookies would do a better job than either of these men.
HOWEVER.
Despite their flaws of not understanding what the Church stood for, there are suggestions that these men could have actually loved each other. My teacher pointed out how the narrator describes the Pardoner has a gelding or a mare. Could this be suggesting he is a homosexual or eunuch? At line 673, another mention of his homosexuality could be suggested. It says that he would harmonize (The Pardoner loved to sing. What gay man doesn't love singing!?! I love to sing :P) with the Summoner's "stif burdoun" (sturdy bass). These two men loved to sing to and with each other. Plus they're both really shitty people; what a beautiful love story!
Overall, I find this VERY VERY interesting. We all know that homosexuals have made great contributions to literature throughout the ages, but it's interesting that it was actually "talked"about within a story. Chaucer simply describes the possible lifestyle of both the Summoner and Pardoner, yet he doesn't judge it or ridicule it.
I love this reading (being not so straight, myself) and I think you do have solid points. However I wish there was some more evidence in the text besides what we see here. For me, it seems a little fast to jump to the conclusion that Chaucer should be applauded for having these characters possibly read a queer characters because he only dropped these few subtle hints. I feel like it would have been possible to drop a few more hints without being blatantly obvious about it (because it wouldn't have been acceptable with most other people.)
ReplyDeleteThat said, I did go back and reread the descriptions of these two and loved this reading!
I love this idea, and I think you've got a great backbone to try and support it, but there has to be more textual evidence hidden around somewhere. Considering how it seems like Chaucer had a thing for incorporating shock value and the like in his tales, I think that it's a perfectly valid assumption that something could be insinuated from this. I know that I'll be looking out for anything that might stick out from now on.
ReplyDeleteOmg Garrett! This is great. Who would ever think that homosexuality could be referred to or even brought up in this time period? I never thought about that. This actually makes me think a lot about what else Chaucer has hidden in the prologues and tales! We definitely don't hear a lot about homosexuality, women, or anything of that sort, Why is that? I feel like these two topics are very important in the medieval time period. Great job :)))
ReplyDelete