Physiognomy and Humoral Theory - Utrecht University Repository
M
ARGREET
P
IEPER
P
HYSIOGNOMY AND
H
UMORAL
T
HEORY
:
T
HE
P
ORTRAYAL OF THE
C
LERGY IN
‘T
HE
C
ANTERBURY
T
ALES
’
BA Thesis English Language and Culture,
Utrecht University
Author: Margreet Pieper 3958930
Supervisor: Marcelle Cole
Second reader: Lieke Stelling
Date: 22 June 2015
Margreet Pieper
C ONTENTS
Chapter 1 – The Medieval Context
1.3 Chaucer, Physiognomy, and Humoral Theory
1.4 The Church in Late Medieval England
Chapter 2 – The Regular Clergy: the Friar and the Prioress
2.1.2 Other Physical Characteristics
2.2.2 Other Physical Characteristics
Chapter 3 - The Secular Clergy: The Pardoner and the Parson
3.1.2 Other Physical Characteristics
2
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
3
I
NTRODUCTION
Written by Geoffrey Chaucer at the end of the fourteenth century, The Canterbury Tales is without a doubt one of the most famous and influential works of medieval English literature.
This collection of more than twenty stories describes a group of pilgrims who travel from
Southwark to the shrine of Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral. Led by their tavern host
Harry Baily, they all take part in a story-telling contest to amuse and entertain themselves on the long way to Canterbury. The group consists of members of every social class and they reflect a range of characters who, together, offer a complete image of English medieval society. The pilgrims are introduced in the General Prologue by describing their “estaat,” ( GP l. 716) which is “[a] class of persons, especially a social or political class or group; also a member of a particular class or rank” (Mann 3) and “[a] person’s position in society” (3). The
General Prologue relies heavily on the genre of the estates satire, as Jill Mann describes in her book Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire . This genre, which includes mostly works from the fourteenth century, “sets forth the functions and duties of each estate and castigate the failure of the estates in the present world to live up to their divinely assigned social roles”
(Greenblatt 242). In The Canterbury Tales , Chaucer satirises the contemporary estates by presenting the audience with pilgrims who fail to perform their estate duties.
Unconventionally, he does this without any “overt moral judgement” (242).
Chaucer is praised for many different achievements in The Canterbury Tales ; the carefully structured tales, the witty humour and his use of different linguistic registers are just a few of the ways in which Chaucer’s genius expresses itself. Furthermore, the characterisation of the pilgrims and the tales’ characters are of such quality that one who reads the tales is immediately drawn into the stories. Chaucer succinctly manages to create complete characters whose appearance, behaviour and actions are convincing and captivating, and who appeal to the audience. An important part of these depictions is Chaucer’s use of
Margreet Pieper
4 physiognomy and humoral theory: ancient and medieval sciences that describe how physical appearance and the four bodily fluids of Hippocratic medicine reflect and determine one’s personality. Almost all of Chaucer’s pilgrims are described using these theories, and a medieval audience would have recognised and judged the pilgrims from this perspective.
Modern readers and listeners are less likely to pick up on the associations that certain physical features have, because physiognomy and humoral theory have given way to a more modern scientific perspective following discoveries in the fields of human anatomy and chemistry.
Chaucer did not desist from criticising contemporary society in The Canterbury Tales .
Barely any pilgrim, and, by extension, sector of society, escapes his critique, which is often expressed through irony and satire. However, here too Chaucer’s use of the medieval sciences is patent. Chaucer used physiognomy and humoral theory to reinforce his criticism and caricature of certain sectors of fourteenth-century society. Intensive research has been carried out on this framework in which Chaucer was working and scholars, such as Walter Clyde
Curry, Jill Mann, and Monica McAlpine have analysed and revealed ways in which the physical appearance of the pilgrims and characters relates to their actions and behaviour.
Chaucer’s critique is aimed at all social classes, but especially at the religious layers of society. A strong sense of anti-clericalism is evident throughout The Canterbury Tales and this is mostly visible in his characterisation of the clerical pilgrims. Chaucer’s criticism of the clergy in The Canterbury Tales reflects the growing anti-clerical sentiment felt in the fourteenth century.
However, scholars have failed to make connections between Chaucer’s critique of the members of the clergy and his use of physiognomy and humoral theory. The present thesis will reveal ways in which physiognomy and humoral theory were used in medieval England and how Chaucer applied these theories in his characterisation of members of the clergy. This approach will be applied to a selection of clerical pilgrims from The Canterbury Tales that
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
5 represent both the regular and the secular clergy and both men and women. It will be seen that
Chaucer used physiognomy and humoral theory as a vehicle of criticism and caricature.
The first chapter of this study will give an outline of the medieval context and framework in which Geoffrey Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales . It will first examine and trace the history of physiognomy and humoral theory from Ancient Greece until the Middle
Ages. It will then move on to summarise the situation of the Church in late medieval England.
It will touch upon the regular and secular clergy and the ways in which different religious orders had developed into wealthy and corrupt institutions. The second chapter will analyse and discuss two members of the regular clergy found among the pilgrims, namely the Friar and the Prioress. The research will focus on ways in which Chaucer used physiognomy and humoral theory to express his criticism of the clergy. The third chapter will continue to apply this approach but will look at two members of the secular clergy; the Pardoner and the Parson.
Both these chapters will use translations of ancient handbooks on physiognomy to analyse and interpret physical descriptions of these clergy members, namely “A New Edition and
Translation of the Leiden Polemon” by Robert Hoyland and “The Physiognomy of
Adamantius the Sophist” by Ian Repath. Finally, the fourth chapter will summarise the present study's findings and draw conclusions on how Chaucer used physiognomy and humoral theory to convey and reflect his view of the clergy in fourteenth-century England.
Margreet Pieper
6
C
HAPTER
1
–
T
HE
M
EDIEVAL
C
ONTEXT
1.1
P HYSIOGNOMY
1.1.1
A NCIENT G REECE
From the fourth century BC onwards, physiognomy became a well-established and valued art in Ancient Greece. The “art of determining a person’s character from his external features”
(Ahonen 623) was written about by Plato and Aristotle and physiognomy continued to be used well into the Middle Ages in Europe and the Arabic countries, and even during the
Renaissance in some parts of Europe (Martin Porter 495). Even in the nineteenth century, physiognomy became important in criminal anthropology. The art was seen as a serious practice by both philosophers and medics, and was used to determine someone’s health as well as to judge people’s character (Glick 402). Because of the long tradition and practical applicability of physiognomy, there has never been a need to prove or legitimise the theories of this art, and the handbooks that have been written on it are not based on any general agreement between their authors. It is also impossible to discover who invented physiognomy, although scholars often point to Pythagoras and Zophyrus (Hartsock 9), two famous ancient
Grecians.
The art of physiognomy is based on the “interrelationship between the body and the soul” (Ahonen 623). It studies the ways in which the mental condition can influence the body and also how someone’s emotions can be seen or read in facial expressions and gestures.
Contrastively, the art also elaborates on how bodily characteristics, such as the temperature of one’s blood or blood pressure, can influence mental conditions (623).
There are four major ancient works on physiognomy: the Pseudo-Aristotelian
Physiognomonics , Polemon’s Physiognomy
, Adamantius’ handbook, and the anonymous
Latin Physiognomy . These works are respectively from 400 BC, the second century CE and
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
7 the fourth century CE (Ahonen 624). All later works from the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance are based on these primary texts.
Polemon’s
Physiognomy
, as well as Adamantius’ handbook, is divided into two books; the first book focusses on the eye and the second one on all other body parts and the characteristics that are associated with them (Swain 177), such as nails, feet, calves, the back, ears, hair and voice (Hoyland 335-341). It is foremost a “practical manual” (Swain 178) that invites the reader to use techniques to judge someone on their appearance. It indicates whether a positive or a negative character trait is connected with a particular sign, such as sullen eyes and a slow speed of step.
Similarly, the Pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognomics and the anonymous Latin
Physiognomy contain hundreds of entries on every aspect of the human body. Here too, the eyes are described in most detail, probably because eyes come in so many different colours, shapes and with a range of different movements. The other bodily aspects are clearly important too. Many entries are similar or overlap in these four works, but some can also be contradictory (Hartsock 12), which illustrates the sometimes doubtful reliability of the works and their sources. Besides entries on what particular facial and bodily features mean, there are also ones on how to recognise different kinds of men, such as the depressed man, or the noble man. So, these ancient works offer a complete analysis of the human mind and body.
1.1.2
T HE M IDDLE A GES
During the first part of the Middle Ages, the Greek texts on physiognomy were unknown and unavailable (Glick 400), but in the twelfth and thirteenth century some of these ancient works were translated into Latin. They became available for those who could read, so mostly clergymen and noblemen. Due to the dissemination of these texts, medieval scholars held debates and discussions on the physiognomic knowledge, and sometimes made their own interpretations of some physical traits (400). Some of the medieval knowledge on
Margreet Pieper
8 physiognomy “was drawn directly from the Greek texts, but part of it was introduced to the
Latin West through Arabic sources” (400). The four ancient works discussed above were part of the medieval scholars’ scientific sources on physiognomy, but there were also medieval texts that dealt with the art. For example, the medieval treatise Secretum Secretorum deals with physiognomy, as does, among others, Liber ad Almansorem , which was translated from
Arab into Latin in the 1180s 1 (Ahohen 633). The “first, and possibly the most influential, of those medieval physiognomical treatises was written by Michael Scot,” (Roy Porter 69) who was a scholar working at the court of Frederick II in the early thirteenth century. Several other courts in Europe also played an important role in the dissemination and development of the art. The works were circulated in the European royal courts and due to visiting scholars from other countries, the works quickly spread through the rest of Europe. By the end of the Middle
Ages physiognomy had become “firmly [tied] to humoral theory and medicine” (Glick 401).
1.2
H UMORAL T HEORY
Humoral theory, or the study of the four humours, is a “scientific belief that the human body was a composite of four fluids or humours: blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile”
(Hartsock 10). An imbalance in the humours or the dominance of one particular humour could explain one’s temperament. Four different temperaments are described according to which humour is in excess: the sanguine complexion, in which blood dominates; the phlegmatic complexion, when phlegm is in excess; the choleric complexion, when yellow bile is dominating; and the melancholic complexion, in which black bile dominates the body. Each complexion or humour had a number of character traits ascribed to it. For example, someone with a sanguine complexion would be generous, optimistic, happy and carefree. A phlegmatic person would be lazy and cowardly, and someone with a choleric humour would be violent,
1 Original title; Kitāb al-Manṣūrī fī al-ṭibb ( The Book on Medicine for Mansur ).
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
9 vengeful and ambitious. Lastly, people with a melancholic temperament would have a sentimental and introspective personality, and could be angry for a long time.
Humoral theory dates back to classical times and was first postulated in the works of
Hippocrates and Galen. Hippocrates was the first to discuss humoral theory in the field of medicine, even though there was some resistance to this perspective from contemporary scholars who did not agree with his innovative ideas on the human body (Schiefsky 7).
Despite such resistance however, humoral theory developed into one of the most influential sciences of Ancient Greece and the Middle Ages. The Hippocratic treatises from the fifth and fourth centuries BC, which discuss humoral doctrine, differ from the later theories.
Hippocrates proposed up to nine or ten different humours (Siegel 216), and it was Galen of
Pergamon who, five centuries later, reduced the number of humours to the four as they are now still known (216). Galen, a Greek physician and philosopher who studied anatomy (5), interpreted the Hippocratic ideas and doctrines on physiology and philosophy and used them as “the basis for the classification of disease” (205).
Physiognomy and humoral theory are related but developed separately. Both are based on the notion that bodily contents – in this case the composition of the four fluids – can reflect and determine a person’s physical appearance, character and health. During the Middle Ages both humoral theory and physiognomy were used to diagnose patients and to explain someone’s character traits, such as reliability, sexual behaviour and intellect (Glick 402). The main difference between the two sciences is that humoral theory has a purely medical dimension that physiognomy lacks.
Humoral theory is discussed in a number of medieval texts. The four humours are discussed in, for example, Guy de Chauliac’s Chirurgia Magna from 1363, “an influential work from the High Middle Ages” (Ogden 272). He refers to, among others, the work of
Galen, and this proves the point that after Galen not many new treatises on humoral theory
Margreet Pieper
10 were written, just merely new interpretations of the literature that was already there. Other texts in which humoral theory is discussed, such as Secretum Secretorum , are also mainly based on Galen’s much earlier work. So, similarly to the handbooks on physiognomy, humoral theory did not change much after its first established appearance. Humorism was discarded as an accepted science in the eighteenth century, when modern knowledge of anatomy and chemistry made it rather implausible.
1.3
C HAUCER , P HYSIOGNOMY , AND H UMORAL T HEORY
All the works discussed above were very influential during the Middle Ages in Europe and their entries on a range of subjects included, besides physiognomy, also astrology, alchemy and magic. These works determined and constructed the framework of medieval beliefs in which Geoffrey Chaucer was working in the fourteenth century. Physiognomy and humoral theory were widely accepted as legitimate sciences and used by doctors, clerics and commoners alike. Such theories became a part of everyday medieval life and Chaucer’s audience would have been familiar with these beliefs and conventions. Chaucer’s “primary purpose was evidently to create characters acting in stories before a specific audience whose beliefs and prejudices were known; and as artist, with his personal attitudes carefully concealed, he permitted his people to discuss whatever subjects they liked and to express whatever conclusions they pleased” (Curry xv-xvi). Chaucer could use some of the medieval sciences to express opinions that might not have been his personally, but that he knew would evoke discussion among his audience. For example, the Franklin expresses criticism towards natural magic and the Canon’s Yeoman towards alchemy (xvi). However, this does not mean
Chaucer had an aversion towards these practices as well, but the pilgrims’ discussions reflect contemporary scholarly debates and invite the audience to participate in these debates.
Furthermore, many of the pilgrims in The Canterbury Tales are described using theories on
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
11 physiognomy and the four humours. Especially in the General Prologue, when the pilgrims are first introduced, details on physical features dominate their descriptions. The audience would have immediately recognised and made links after hearing certain descriptions, and the actions of the characters would have been predicted.
The following quote from the General Prologue with reference to the Squire exemplifies Chaucer’s use of physiognomy:
With lokkes crulle as they were leyd in presse.
Of twenty yeer of age he was, I gesse.
Of his stature he was of evene lengthe ( General Prologue ll. 81 – 83) 2, 3
Curly hair as seen in the Squire is, according to Polemon, a sure sign of “cowardice and desire” (Hoyland 431). By mentioning this detail on his appearance, these character traits are introduced and stressed. The next quote illustrates how Chaucer used the four humours:
A Frankeleyn was in his compaignye.
Whit was his berd as is the dayesye;
Of his complexioun he was sangwyn. ( GP ll. 311-333)
4
The Franklin is described as being of a sanguine complexion; this means his body was dominated by the fluid blood. A medieval audience would have known immediately which character traits were associated with that, for example optimism and enthusiasm, and they would have judged the Franklin accordingly. Raising expectations about the pilgrims in these first descriptions in the General Prologue is an important part of the narrative structure of The
Canterbury Tales .
2 All quotations are from The Riverside Chaucer . Ed. Larry D. Benson, 2008. All translations are from The
Geoffrey Chaucer Homepage Interlinear Translations : http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/teachslf/trindex.htm#list.
3 With locks curled as if they had been laid in a curler.
He was twenty years of age, I guess.
Of his stature he was of moderate height,
4 A Franklin was in his company.
His beard was white as a daisy;
As to his temperament, he was dominated by the humour blood.
Margreet Pieper
12
1.4
T HE C HURCH IN L ATE M EDIEVAL E NGLAND
During the Middle Ages in England, the Church was very powerful. It shaped and controlled every layer of society and had much authority. Its principal role focussed on “the salvation of souls through teaching and the sacraments,” (Lepine 359) and it also controlled societal behaviour by setting standards of good behaviour. The Church was financially supported by receiving twenty-five percent of the kingdom’s wealth, which made the upper class their most important partner. Since roughly all medieval inhabitants of England were Catholic, the influence of the Church on the whole medieval society was enormous. Between 1100 and
1500, the English Church underwent a major reformation, due to external events such as the
Black Death and the Great Western Schism. A large amount of the English population participated in clerical orders. The clergy was divided into two groups; the regular and the secular clergy.
The regular clergy consisted of members of the Church who had taken the religious vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience. The monks and nuns who were part of this group lived away from the laity in monasteries and convents. Their task was to pray for society, and to provide education and social welfare (Fritze 108). Friars, who were also part of the regular clergy, were, unlike monks, able to venture outside to provide teaching, preaching, and social services. Friars were supposed to live in poverty and ask for alms from those who they helped and preached for, which gave them the reputation and status of beggars. Even though most friars did perform their clerical duties to some extent, they “became favourite targets for anticlerical attacks that stressed their sloth, greed, drunkenness, and lechery” (Fritze 108) during the fourteenth century. They were renown for not obeying to their vows of celibate chastity and poverty, and often required wealth through their begging as they travelled the country.
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
13
The secular clergy were those who were not official members of a religious order and who had not taken the religious vows. Most of the secular clergy were priests who helped the daily functioning of the Church by providing “pastoral services to the laity, saying masses, hearing confessions, and providing spiritual guidance” (Fritze 108). Some of the secular clergy were educated at universities, and it was this group who had the authority in the higher offices of the Church.
One of the main reasons for the growing wealth and corruption of the Church was the fact that there were too many clergy members of every kind in England. This formed an
“oppressive financial burden” (Fritze 109) to the English laity and also increased the Church’ wealth significantly. Especially the Benedictine order, whose popularity grew during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries throughout Europe, became very rich. As a reaction to this, mendicant orders, such as the Franciscan and Dominican orders, emerged. These religious orders were “bound by a vow of absolute poverty and dedication to an ascetic way of life”
(Labatt) and were a protest against the wealthy monasteries. The mendicant orders wanted to live like Christ did; in complete poverty and travelling to preach. The mendicant friars opposed themselves to the wealthy and corrupt institutions like the Benedictine order.
However, eventually these orders became corrupt as well, and got criticised themselves. This development was due to the, still, corrupt nature of mendicant orders as giving money and buying one’s salvation led to a redistribution of wealth (Callahan 117).
Due to this hypocrisy and corruption, a growing sense of anti-clericalism and antifraternalism was felt among the English of the fourteenth century. Anti-fraternalism originated from the “thirteenth-century controversies between the secular clergy and the fraternal orders” (Szittya 287) in Paris, and was aimed at the mendicant friars. However, these sentiments “seldom questioned the church’s doctrinal teachings and moral legitimacy” (Fritze
109). Anti-clericalists attacked the bad clergy and their failure to fulfil their duties, and their
Margreet Pieper
14 preoccupation with secular life, but never Catholicism or the entire regular and secular clergies.
This sentiment of anti-clericalism and anti-fraternalism can be found in many works of
English fourteenth-century literature. For example, in the genre of the estates satire and other ecclesiastical satires, such as William Langland’s
Piers Plowman . This narrative describes the quest for the true Christian life, and is both an allegory as a social satire. It includes “the usual attacks on friars but also specific allegations against fraternal orders” (Dean). Of course,
The
Canterbury Tales expresses anti-clericalism throughout, but specifically The Summoner’s
Tale is claimed to express anti-fraternalism through Friar John (Fleming 688).
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
15
C
HAPTER
2
–
T
HE
R
EGULAR
C
LERGY
:
THE
F
RIAR AND THE
P
RIORESS
As previously mentioned, The Canterbury Tales expresses Chaucer’s criticism towards different social classes and their behaviour and customs, and in particular towards clerical hypocrisy and corruption. This chapter will discuss two members of the regular clergy, the
Friar and the Prioress, and Chaucer’s use of physiognomy and humoral theory in his depiction of these pilgrims.
2.1
T HE F RIAR
Brother Hubert is depicted as a non-pious and sinful brother. He is acquainted with women and taverns in every town; he neglects his clergy duties; he is careless towards the poor and wears fancy clothes while he should be living in poverty ( GP ll. 215-263). The General
Prologue is also full of physical descriptions of the Friar that further help construct and enforce this image of him as hypocritical and worldly. Interpreting some of these descriptions using theories on physiognomy, it becomes evident what a medieval audience might have made of Hubert.
2.1.1
V
OICE AND
S
PEECH
The Friar is introduced with a comment on his skills as a speaker. He appears to be a smooth talker, something that undoubtedly benefits him when soliciting donations; he is quite rich for a friar and dressed in expensive clothing:
In alle the ordres foure is noon that kan
So muchel of daliaunce and fair langage. ( GP ll. 210-211) 5
Furthermore, the Friar’s voice itself is an important and telling characteristic.
And certeinly he hadde a murye note:
5 In all the four orders of friars is no one that knows
So much of sociability and elegant speech.
Margreet Pieper
16
Wel koude he synge and pleyen on a rote
Of yeddynges he baar outrely the pris. ( GP ll. 235-237)
6
The Friar is a skilful singer and can also play on a rote, which is a string instrument. ‘Playing musical instruments’ had a sexual connotation in the Middle Ages and Chaucer used this as a reference to intercourse on many occasions in The Canterbury Tales . In this particular example, it points to the Friar’s womanising skills, and the possible sexual relationships he had with “worthy women of the toun”
( GP l. 217)
7
. Furthermore, the reference to the Friar singing ballads refers to the fact that, during the fourteenth century, friars often used the melodies of popular ballads to popularise the faith by providing them with religious lyrics in the vernacular (Kehnel 104). Another remarkable feature of the Friar’s voice is his lisp:
Somwhat he lipsed, for his wantownesse,
To make his Englissh sweete upon his tonge;
And in his harpyng, whan that he hadde songe ( GP ll. 235-266) 8
The Friar has a lisp both when he talks and when he sings. Interestingly enough though, these latter lines seem to imply that his lisp is, in fact, fake and intentional. He does it on purpose to make his English sound a particular way, one that he must think is attractive and helpful for some of his intentions – ones that he should not even have to begin with, such as seducing women and deceiving people into giving him money. The Friar is aware of the image of himself that he is constructing and he prefers to associate with wealthy landowners rather than with poor and sick people, such as lepers. The physiognomy handbooks as previously discussed do not elaborate on lisps, but it is certainly an important detail, more so also in the
7
8
6 And certainly he had a merry voice:
He well knew how to sing and play on a rote;
He absolutely took the prize for reciting ballads. worthy women of the town
Somewhat he lisped, for his affectation,
To make his English sweet upon his tongue;
And in his harping, when he had sung,
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
17 light of the ongoing quarrel between the Friar and the Summoner. These two clergy members do not get along in The Canterbury Tales , and insult each other via the tales that they tell. The
Summoner tells a tale about a friar, John, who also has a lisp and whom he portrays negatively (Whitesell 161). The Summoner expresses his opinions of Friar Hubert through his own tale instead of telling him directly what he thinks about Hubert, making it all the more sly. In this way, the lisp not only helps to construct a negative image of the Friar, but it also contributes to the unity of different narrative elements in The Canterbury Tales as a whole
(161).
Furthermore, the personality of Hubert is echoed in that of the Summoner’s Friar John.
Both friars have a melancholic complexion, which becomes evident in their gluttonous and angry character. John behaves similarly to Hubert in his acts as a friar; he tricks people into giving him as much money and gifts as possible and has a sexual relationship with Thomas’ wife. The Summoner calls John a licensed beggar: “A mersshy contree called Holdernesse / in which ther wente a lymytour aboute” ( Summoner’s Tale ll. 1709-1711) 9 and the Friar is made out for the same in the General Prologue: “He was the beste beggere in his hous” (
GP l. 252)
10
. They try hard to appear as trustworthy, gentle and caring men but they are actually constantly lying, deceiving people, and not caring about the poor or the ill. They are behaving as friars did in the fourteenth century and it was this kind of friar that helped cause the strong sense of anti-clericalism. These two friars think they are smarter than anyone, especially than those for whom they preach. However, in The Summoner’s Tale , John gets tricked by Thomas and receives a fart as a gift. John remains angry for a long time, which is characteristic of people with the melancholic complexion. Friar Hubert is also angry with the Summoner throughout the entire Canterbury Tales . So, their melancholic temperament, which is caused by an excess of black bile, is expressed in their corrupt, angry and deceitful nature.
9 A marshy country called Holdernesse,
10
In which there went a licensed beggar about.
He was the best beggar in his house
Margreet Pieper
18
2.1.2
O THER P HYSICAL C HARACTERISTICS
The description of the Friar’s eyes in the General Prologue further aids the audience in seeing the ugly character of the Friar.
His eyen twynkled in his heed aryght
As doon the sterres in the frosty nyght ( GP ll. 267-268) 11
These lines can be interpreted using “The Physiognomy of Adamantius the Sophist”. Stars in a frosty night look like bright spots against a pitch black background. Adamantius says: “Black sparkling eyes are very bad and cowardly and extremely mischievous” (Repath 509).
Polemon, too, mentions black sparkling eyes to be a sign of “bad company” (Hoyland 367).
Thus, this is another small clue as to how to judge Hubert’s character. With every new description he becomes more sinful and untrustworthy.
The following line is a curious one in describing the Friar: “His nekke whit was as the flour-de-lys” ( GP l. 238)
12
. If the Friar had been performing his clergy duties correctly, his neck would have been tanned by the sunlight, instead of being white and soft. He would have been outside regularly to visit the poor and would have travelled from one place to another to preach. So his white neck hints at the fact that the Friar neglects his clerical duties. However, being aware of the importance of physiognomy to Chaucer, further layers of interpretation can be added. According to John Metham, a late medieval practiser of physiognomy, a smooth and soft neck “was a disgraceful possession,” (Horton 32) and clergy members often tried to hide it because “a soft neck is an indication of perversion” (33). However, the Friar does not hide his neck and so he shows his perverted character. Possibly, he does this on purpose, because he makes no effort to hide his other activities – such as visiting taverns and women – either.
11 His eyes twinkled in his head exactly
12
As do the stars in the frosty night.
His neck was white as a lily flower;
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
19
2.2
T HE P RIORESS
The Prioress, Madame Eglentyne, tries to imitate a courtly lady by the way she dresses, speaks and acts. Chaucer mocks her attempts to emulate a refined courtly lady and questions her devotion. Social climbing is an important theme in The Canterbury Tales , and Chaucer suggests that the Prioress has entered religious life as a nun as a way to advance socially. Her behaviour is secular and worldly; this becomes evident in, for example, her brooch which is inscribed with the words ‘Amor vincit omnia.’
13
This motto is ambiguous and suggests that the Prioress is more interested in romantic love than in the love for God; caritas, which would be more appropriate for a nun. Furthermore, the Prioress’ attitude towards animals suggests that she is not so interested in humans, and that she prefers taking care of animals instead of involving in acts of charity. She gets emotionally involved when animals suffer and feeds her dogs fancy food:
She was so charitable and so pitous
She wolde wepe, if that she saugh a mous
Kaught in a trappe, if it were deed or bledde
Of smale houndes hadde she that she fedde
With rosted flessh, or milk and wastel-breed.
But soore wepte she if oon of hem were deed,
Or if men smoot it with a yerde smerte; ( GP ll. 143-149)
14
Pets were forbidden in convents, because they would distract nuns from their duties and their love of God. So this also illustrates the Prioress’ secular behaviour and her disregard for
13 ‘Love Conquers All’
14 She was so charitable and so compassionate
She would weep, if she saw a mouse
Caught in a trap, if it were dead or bled.
She had some small hounds that she fed
With roasted meat, or milk and fine white bread.
But sorely she wept if one of them were dead,
Or if someone smote it smartly with a stick;
Margreet Pieper
20 religious rules. Furthermore, the Prioress adapts graceful and courtly table manners, ( GP ll.
127-141) but the fact that she has taken so much effort to get familiar with courtly table manners shows that the Prioress is clearly more attracted to the aristocratic secular society than to the life within her convent. It is suggested that she lacks a genuine religious calling, which is also expressed through the descriptions of her physical appearance.
15
2.2.1
V
OICE AND
S
PEECH
When the Prioress is introduced in the General Prologue, there are a number of comments on her voice and speech. This is, together with her physique, one of the most important, telling and critical lines about her. Firstly, her voice is nasal:
Ful weel she soong the service dyvyne,
Entuned in hir nose ful semely; ( GP ll. 122-123) 16
On nasal voices, Polemon says: “Those who speak through their nose are malicious, spiteful liars and rejoice in the sufferings of others” (Repath 541). The Prioress shows no compassion towards her fellow human beings, only towards animals she seems to be “so charitable and so piteous” (
GP l. 143)
17
. Her voice gives an insight into her true character, which has no caritas.
It also refers to the Prioress acting pretentiously, because she thinks she is rightly imitating the way that courtly ladies speak. This is a form of social pretension, something that can also be found in her speech:
And Frenssh she spak ful faire and fetisly,
After the scole of Stratford atte Bowe,
15 It has to be noted that the handbooks on physiognomy were written to judge a man’s character rather than a woman’s. The entries almost only mention male figures and their behaviour according to their physical features.
Nevertheless, these theories from physiognomy might still be able to give a good insight into how the Prioress could have been judged by a medieval audience.
16 She sang the divine service very well,
Intoned in her nose in a very polite manner;
17 so charitable and so compassionate
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
21
For Frenssh of Parys was to hire unknowe. ( GP ll. 124-126)
18
The Prioress speaks ‘French’ but it is not the kind of French associated with the court. In fact, it is French spoken with an East London accent, which she had probably learned in her convent, the Benedictine nunnery of St Leonard’s, near Stratford-Bowe (Rothwell 184).
Scholars suggest that another possibility is that she spoke a kind of Anglo-Norman French, which would have been even more different, and unfashionable, from the Central French spoken in Paris (185). The speech of the Prioress is not exactly a physiognomic feature but it shows her pretentious behaviour as a social climber. She attempts to imitate an elegant courtly lady, but betrays herself by speaking the kind of French that is associated with the exact opposite of what she wants to achieve. Comments on her movement and gesture further reinforce this sentiment:
Ful semely after hir mete she raughte.
And sikerly she was of greet desport,
And ful plesaunt, and amyable of port,
And peyned hire to countrefete cheere
Of court, and to been estatlich of manere,
And to ben holden digne of reverence. ( GP ll. 136-141)
19
In all that she does – her manners, her speech, her dress – she does not look and behave in the manner one would expect from a Prioress. She is “consonant with the lady of a castle rather than with the head of a nunnery” (Mann 128).
18 And she spoke French very well and elegantly,
In the manner of Stratford at the Bow,
For French of Paris was to her unknown.
19 She reached for her food in a very seemly manner.
And surely she was of excellent deportment,
And very pleasant, and amiable in demeanour,
And she took pains to imitate the manners
Of court, and to be dignified in behaviour,
And to be considered worthy of reverence.
Margreet Pieper
22
2.2.2
O THER P HYSICAL C HARACTERISTICS
Moreover, further physical descriptions of the Prioress illustrate that she is depicted as a worldly beauty, especially in her facial features:
Hir nose tretys, hir eyen greye as glas,
Hit mouth ful smal, and therto softe and reed.
But sikerly she hadde a fair forheed;
It was almoost a spanne brood, I trowe;
For, hardily, she was nat undergrowe. ( GP ll. 152-156)
20
Her appearance is that “of a conventional type” (Brewer 268) of the heroines from romance tales; a well formed nose, grey eyes, a small mouth and a high forehead were regarded as desirable and beautiful. However, here too, there are characteristics like her nasal voice and grating accent that spoil this ideal image. Her forehead is very large which would have been deemed attractive by medieval standards, but Chaucer seems to indicate that it is almost too large to still be beautiful. The Prioress’ eyes “were grey as glass, that is, grey in the sense of a neutral tint mostly black-and-white blended, like the muddy English glass [of the fourteenth century], or grey in the sense of vair , sparkling, colourful and bright, like the rare Venetian glass, or French vitre” (Kinney 341). So, even though grey eyes are a feature of the “romance heroines” (Baum 238), the Prioress’ eyes can also be imagined as not being pretty at all. This introduces a new layer in a reading of the Prioress, which shows Chaucer’s use of puns and humour in depicting his characters. Besides, grey eyes have long been associated with a deceiving nature (Mann 129) and this corresponds with Polemon’s comment on nasal voices being indicative of a mischievous and lying character.
20 Her nose well formed, her eyes grey as glass,
Her mouth very small, and moreover soft and red.
But surely she had a fair forehead;
It was almost nine inches broad, I believe;
For, certainly, she was not undergrown.
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
23
In conclusion, the General Prologue shows the Prioress as a social climber striving to emulate the ideals of a courtly romance heroine. She ought not to be interested in secular life, but her behaviour, dress and speech betray that she is and that she is not genuinely interested in her life as a nun. Her nasal voice in the wrong accent, her eyes that are not quite the right colour and her very large forehead show how Chaucer used physiognomy to express his disapproval of the Prioress’ behaviour, and the hypocrisy and pretentiousness of clergy members from his own society.
Margreet Pieper
24
C
HAPTER
3 T
HE
S
ECULAR
C
LERGY
: T
HE
P
ARDONER AND THE
P
ARSON
3.1
T HE P ARDONER
This section will explore Chaucer’s use of physiognomy and humoral theory in characterising two members of the secular clergy in The Canterbury Tales ; the Pardoner and the Parson.
Chaucer’s Pardoner is undoubtedly one of the most analysed and academically discussed pilgrims from The Canterbury Tales . There are many aspects of him that have busied scholars worldwide for decades: his sexuality, his behaviour as a pardoner, some of his physical features and his personality in relation to his own tale. Academics do not always agree with each other when it comes to the interpretations of some descriptions of the
Pardoner. For example, the question whether the Pardoner might be a eunuch or a homosexual is much debated. For some scholars, such as Walter Clyde Curry, his “unfortunate birth”
(Clyde 59) should be seen as a source for pity rather than of harsh judgement, whereas
Gregory W. Gross claims that explaining everything about the Pardoner in the light of his sexuality is a deadening and too easy an interpretation of this mysterious character (Gross 3).
All in all, it seems that every little detail about the Pardoner has been analysed and that he
“has been fully explained” (McAlpine 9).
Yet, it is understandable that this pilgrim gives rise to such diverse criticism. “Chaucer gives him to us as a puzzle,” (Khinoy 256) and the clues must be read and interpreted carefully. There are indeed many lines about the Pardoner – in both the General Prologue and the Prologue to his own tale – that provide interesting insight into his personality and motivations. This section will show the importance and usage of physiognomy by Chaucer in his characterisation of the Pardoner. Undebatable is that Chaucer is trying to convey a certain negative image of this pardoner, most likely because he “knew well the Pardoners of his time”
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
25
(Curry 54). During Chaucer’s time, pardoners in general were not popular members of society, especially because many of them did not remain pious when the Church weakened during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
3.1.1
V
OICE AND
S
PEECH
The Pardoner’s voice is a distinctive characteristic of this pilgrim and a clue for his being a homosexual or a eunuch, especially in combination with his hairless face:
A voys he hadde as smal as hath a goot.
No berd hadde he, ne nevere sholde have;
As smothe it was as it were late shave.
I trowe he were a geldyng or a mare. ( GP ll. 688-691)
21
Both Polemon’s and Adamantius’ handbooks mention a high, shrill, goat-like voice. “A New
Edition and Translation of the Leiden Polemon” reads: “If you see that the man opens his mouth and shouts with a voice like the voice of a he-goat, judge for him limited ambition and carelessness in affairs” (Hoyland 443). Furthermore, “The
Physiognomy of Adamantius the
Sophist” mentions that “the androgynous man [his] voice is thin, shrill-sounding” (Repath
545). So, this kind of voice is associated with people whose sexuality and gender are ambiguous and questionable.
Eunuchs, whether by birth or by castration, were not very popular during the Middle
Ages. Polemon claims that “eunuchs are an evil people, and in them is greed and an assembly of various (evil) qualities” (Hoyland 379). Therefore, the Pardoner’s type of voice points not only to negative character traits, but his voice also indicates that he is possibly a eunuch.
Interestingly enough, Polemon mentions greed in association with eunuchs, and greed is also
21 He had a voice as small as a goat has.
He had no beard, nor never would have;
It (his face) was as smooth as if it were recently shaven.
I believe he was a eunuch or a homosexual.
Margreet Pieper
26 the central theme of The Pardoner’s Tale . It is unclear from just The Canterbury Tales whether or not the Pardoner would have been born a eunuch or became one later by means of castration. In “A New Edition and Translation of the Leiden Polemon” one can read: “Those who are naturally eunuchs have worse signs than other men and are largely savage-minded, deceitful, and villainous, some more than others” (Repath 519). Being a eunuch by birth was thus worse than being castrated.
There are more references to the Pardoner’s voice and speech. Like the Friar, he knows how to manipulate his speech in order to get from people what he wants:
Wel koude he rede a lessoun or a storie,
But alderbest he song an offertorie;
For wel he wiste, whan that song was songe,
He moste preche and wel affile his tonge
To wynne silver, as he ful wel koude;
Therefore he song the murierly and loude. ( GP ll. 709-714)
22
He consciously speaks and preaches in a certain manner and is aware of the effects that it has on people. He also confesses to using Latin when he preaches to stir people’s devotion:
And in Latyn I speke a wordes fewe,
To saffron with my predicacioun,
And for to stire hem to devocioun. ( Pard. Pro. ll. 344-346)
23
22 He well knew how to read a lesson or a story,
But best of all he sang an Offertory;
For he knew well, when that song was sung,
He must preach and well smooth his speech
To win silver, as he very well knew how;
Therefore he sang the more merrily and loud.
23 And in Latin I speak a few words,
With which to add spice to my preaching,
And to stir them to devotion.
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
27
According to himself, the Pardoner has ‘a sharp tongue:’ “Thanne wol I stynge hym with my tonge smerte / In prechyng, so that he shal nat asterte” (
Pard. Pro. ll. 413-414).
24
Besides his speech, he has other tricks too that he can use on his “simple-minded audiences,” (Pearsall
359) such as the false relics that he carries with him.
3.1.2
O THER P HYSICAL C HARACTERISTICS
The Pardoner’s hair – yellow as wax and hanging down in thin strands like flax ( GP ll. 675-
676) – further reinforces his supposed lack of manhood. Furthermore, the “yellow” could also refer to one of the four humours: yellow bile. In Galen’s humoral theory, yellow bile is made in the liver and has a hot and dry composition like fire (Siegel 219). Chaucer often uses colours to refer to one of the four humours, and in this case the yellow bile would make the
Pardoner a choleric person. Character traits that are associated with this humour – such as being violent and short-tempered – would have been known by the medieval audience.
The Pardoner’s eyes; “swiche glarynge eyen hadde he as an hare,” ( GP l. 684)
25
are, in physiognomic interpretations, signs of a “man given to folly, a glutton, a libertine, and a drunkard” (Curry 57). Besides, as Gross points out, “Polemon discusses wide, glaring eyes as a general sign of immodesty or shamelessness, and mentions that he has observed them in a man he knows was born without testicles” (Gross 10). Also, the anonymous Latin work
Physiognomy mentions that someone with those eyes is “most dangerous” (Curry 57). Lastly, the Pardoner’s neck is long and thin (
Pard. Pro.
ll. 395-397) and such necks were interpreted by Polemon as ones that “belong to those who are cowardly and malicious” (Repath 525).
In conclusion, the Pardoner as described in the General Prologue is completely consistent with the description that he gives of himself in his own prologue. Whether or not he was a (born) eunuch or a homosexual, the Pardoner is portrayed by both the narrator and
24 Then I will sting him with my sharp tongue
In preaching, so that he shall not escape
25 He had glaring eyes such as has a hare.
Margreet Pieper
28 himself as being malicious, hypocritical, gluttonous and corrupt. He deceives his audience with fake relics and has the most questionable motives. Even after confessing to his “knavish tricks,” (Pearsall 361) he still tries to sell pardons and fake relics to the other pilgrims. This characterisation is further reinforced by his physical characteristics and possible choleric character.
3.2
T HE P ARSON
According to Jill Mann, there are among all the pilgrims three “idealised representatives” (55) from every social class in The Canterbury Tales : the Knight, the Parson and the Ploughman.
In the descriptions of these characters there are no negative or critical lines. Even though
Chaucer often criticised individuals for “failing their social and moral duties,” (55) he probably “did not wish to attack the social ideology of medieval society” (55). Therefore he included one member from every social class to represent the ideals of that class, in order to contrast with other, immorally behaving, characters. The Parson’s portrayal in both the
General Prologue and The Parson’s Prologue is fully positive. He is praised for his knowledge, devotion, loyalty, living happily in poverty and being an excellent priest ( GP ll.
477-528).
However, what is most relevant and interesting in the light of this research is the complete lack of any physical descriptions of the Parson. Nowhere in his portrayal is there any comment on his physical appearance or his humoral temperament. The audience has no idea what he looks like and cannot judge him on that; there is merely the saint-like description of his character that Chaucer presents his audience. The other two characters that are idealised as members of their social class, the Knight and the Ploughman, also lack descriptions of their physical characteristics. In the General Prologue, all that we learn about the Knight is that his clothing is rather poor, but the rest of his introduction focusses on his achievements, battles and travels. The Ploughman, too, remains a mystery when it comes to his appearance. He is
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
29 the brother of the Parson and possesses a personality which is just as worthy as his brother’s.
He is a hard worker and never shies away from aiding someone in need of help. Almost all other pilgrims from The Canterbury Tales , except for minor characters such as the Carpenter,
Weaver, Tapestry Maker and Cook, have at least a few lines on their physical features in the
General Prologue. However, in the description of the Parson, there are none.
A new insight into Chaucer’s use of physiognomy can be deduced from these facts.
They suggest that the medieval writer only used physical descriptions in order to portray someone unfavourably and to point out the negative character traits of the pilgrims. When he mentions someone’s physique, it is rarely because it is associated with having good character or possessing a favourable personality trait. Rather, physicality in relation to physiognomy and humoral theory is used to create caricatures of certain professions, such as the clerical ones. This research has already proven this for particular members of the clergy, but it is the same for many other characters from The Canterbury Tales . For example, the Reeve is “a sclendre colerik man,” 26 ( GP l. 587) and a choleric character, in which yellow bile is in excess, is usually associated with people being easily angered and aggressive, as mentioned above in relation to the Pardoner.
The Miller’s nose is big and open: “His nosethirles blake were and wyde,” 27
( GP l. 557) and Polemon says: “Judge for the roundness of a nose and extensiveness of its opening stupidity” (Hoyland 417). For both these pilgrims, these and other descriptions on their physique are used to express their negative character traits and this is similar for the other pilgrims. When Chaucer uses physiognomy and humoral theory, it often helps construct an ironic layer, and helps to satirise and caricature certain members of the clergy, which is according to the genre of the estates satire. Perhaps, satirising pilgrims was the most important way in which Chaucer applied physiognomy and humoral theory to his work.
26 a slender choleric man
27 His nostrils were black and wide.
Margreet Pieper
30
C
HAPTER
4
–
C
ONCLUSION
Physiognomy and humoral theory are two ancient sciences that were used from the fourth century BC until well into the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. These theories are based on the interrelationship between the body and the soul and the ways in which the body and the soul can influence and reflect each other. Physiognomy analyses physical features and the character traits that are connected with them, whereas humoral theory focusses on how the four bodily fluids; blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile, can influence one’s character and personality. Ancient handbooks written by, for example, Polemon, Adamantius,
Hippocrates and Galen have shaped the entire basis of these sciences and were used for centuries.
This study has shown ways in which Chaucer used physiognomy and humoral theory in The Canterbury Tales to convey his view of the clergy in fourteenth-century England. The growing sense of anti-clericalism found in fourteenth-century England is reflected in
Chaucer’s portrayal of the clergy members among the pilgrims.
In the General Prologue, it is evident that Chaucer’s use of physiognomy and humoral theory adds depth to his characterisation of the pilgrims, as well as that it reinforces his criticism and caricature of the clergy. The details he provides on, for example, facial structure, the colour of eyes, hair and skin, and voice, give away much of a pilgrim’s character. This study has shown how physiognomy and humoral theory can be applied to four clergy members; the Friar, the Prioress, the Pardoner and the Parson.
The Friar’s personality as a sinful brother is expressed through his lisping voice, dangerously sparkling eyes and white neck. Hubert is everything that he should not be as a friar and completely neglects his clergy duties, focussing more on womanising and acquiring wealth. The Prioress tries to imitate a courtly lady and this secular behaviour becomes evident
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
31 in her compassion for animals, her courtly table manners, and also in her physical features.
For example, her nasal voice with the incorrect French accent, grey eyes and massive forehead. Through her character, Chaucer criticises social climbing and pretentiousness and the manner in which certain members of the clergy used a religious life as an excuse and a way of advancing socially. The Pardoner’s goat-like voice, yellow hair, glaring eyes and long neck help construct the image of him as a gluttonous, homosexual, lying pardoner with callous tricks to deceive others. He misbehaves in ways that were, most likely, similar to the behaviour of some pardoners in the fourteenth century. Finally, the Parson’s depiction completely lacks physical descriptions and he is also the only member of the clergy members who is portrayed positively. Together with pilgrims like the Knight and the Ploughman, who also represent the ideals of their social class, the Parson’s appearance is not mentioned in The
Canterbury Tales . His portrayal focusses on his saint-like personality, which is expressed through his behaviour rather than his appearance.
In conclusion, Chaucer used physiognomy and humoral theory as a vehicle of criticism and caricature, and to express the growing sense of anti-clericalism in fourteenthcentury England. Chaucer used physical features, speech, voice and habits in the description of the clergy members to portray the pilgrims negatively and to highlight their sinful and secular behaviour. For worthy characters, such as the Parson, he abstained from describing physical features.
Margreet Pieper
32
W
ORKS
C
ITED
Ahonen, Marke. “Medieval and Early Modern Physiognomy.”
Sourcebook for the History of the Philosophy of Mind: Philosophical Psychology from Plato to Kant . Ed. Simo
Knuuttila and Juha Sihvola. Dordrecht; Springer Science+Business Media, 2014. Web,
16 April 2015.
Baum, Paul F. “Chaucer’s Puns.”
PMLA , 71.1 (Mar., 1956): 225-246. Web. 19 May 2015.
Benson, Larry D. “Explanatory Notes.” In
The Riverside Chaucer . Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2008. 956. Print.
Brewer, D. S. “The Ideal of Feminine Beauty in Medieval Literature, Especially ‘Harley
Lyrics,’ Chaucer, and Some Elizabethans.”
The Modern Language Review , 50.3 (Jul.,
1955): 257-269. Web. 19 May 2015.
Callahan, Jr, Richard J. New Territories, New Perspectives: the Religious impact of the
Louisiana Purchase . Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 2008. Web. 18 June
2015.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. “The Canterbury Tales.”
The Riverside Chaucer . Benson, Larry D. (ed.)
3 rd
Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. 23-328.
Curry, Walter Clyde. Chaucer and the Mediaeval Sciences . New York: Barnes and Noble,
Inc., 1960. Print.
Dean, James M. “Piers the Plowman’s Crede: Introduction.” Six Ecclesiastical Satires .
Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 1991. Team Middle English Texts Series,
University of Rochester. Web. 18 June 2015.
Fleming, John V. “The Antifraternalism of ‘The Summoner’s Tale’.”
The Journal of English and Germanic Philology , 65.4 (Oct., 1966): 688-700. Web. 18 June 2015.
Fritze, Ronald H. and William B. Robinson. Historical Dictionary of Lade Medieval England,
1272-1485 . London: Greenwood Press, 2002. Print.
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
33
Glick, Thomas, Steven J. Livesey, Faith Willis. Medieval Science, Technology and Medicine: an Encyclopaedia . New York: Routledge, 2005. Print.
Greenblatt, Stephen. “Medieval Estates and Orders.”
The Norton Anthology of English
Literature: Norton Topics Online . W.W. Norton & Company 2010-2015. Web. 17
June 2015.
Gross, Gregory W. “Trade Secrets: Chaucer, the Pardoner, the Critics.”
Modern Language
Studies , 25.4 (Autumn 1995): 1-36. Web. 15 May 2015.
Hartsock, Chad. Sight and Blindness in Luke-Acts. The Use of Physical Features in
Characterization . Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2008. Web, 30 April 2015.
Horton, Oze E. “The Neck of Chaucer’s Friar.” Modern Language Notes , Vol. 48, No.1 (Jan.,
1933), pp. 31-34. Web, 8 May 2015.
Hoyland, Robert. “A New Edition and Translation of the Leiden Polemon.”
Seeing the Face,
Seeing the Soul. Polemon’s
Physiognomy from Classical Antiquity to Medieval Islam.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. 329-464.
Kehnel, Annette. “Poets, Preachers and Friars Revisited: Fourteenth-Century Multilingual
Franciscan Manuscripts.”
The Beginnings of Standarnization: Language and Culture in Fourteenth-Century England. Ed. Ursula Schaefer. Peter Lang, 2006. Web. 18 June
2015.
Kinney, Muriel. “Vair and Related Words.” Romantic Review , x (1919): 322-363. Web. 19
May 2015.
Khinoy, Stephan A. “Inside Chaucer’s Pardoner?”
The Chaucer Review , 6.4 (Spring 1972):
255-267. Web. 15 May 2015.
Labatt, Annie and Charlotte Appleyard. “Mendicant Orders in the Medieval World.” In
Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History . New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
2000-present, Oct. 2004. Web. 18 June 2015.
Margreet Pieper
34
Lepine, David. “England: Church and Clergy.” A Companion to Britain in the Later Middle
Ages . Ed. S. H. Rigby. London: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2003. Web. 2 June 2015.
359-380.
Mann, Jill. Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire: The Literature of Social Classes and the
General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1973. Print.
McAlpine, Monica E. “The Pardoner’s Homosexuality and How it Matters.”
PMLA , 95.1
(Jan., 1980): 8-22. Web. 15 May 2015.
Ogden, Margaret S. “Guy de Chauliac’s Theory of the Humors.”
J Hist Med Allied Sci (1969)
XXIV (3): 272-291. Web. 15 May 2015.
Pearsall, Derek. “Chaucer’s Pardoner: The Death of a Salesman.”
The Chaucer Review , 17.4
(1983): 359-364. Web. 18 May 2015.
Porter, Martin. Windows of the Soul: the Art of Physiognomy in European Culture 1470-1780 .
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005. Print.
Porter, Roy. The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Web, 20 April 2015.
Repath, Ian. “The
Physiognomy of Adamantius the Sophist.” Seeing the Face, Seeing the
Soul. Polemon’s Physiognomy from Classical Antiquity to Medieval Islam.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2007. Print. 487-548.
Rothwell, W. “Stratford Atte Bowe Re-Visited.”
The Chaucer Review , 36.2 (2001): 184-207.
Web. 19 May 2015.
Schiefsky, Mark J. Hippocrates On Ancient Medicine: Translated with introduction and summary . Leiden: Brill, 2005. Print.
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
35
Siegel, Rudolph E.
Galen’s System of Physiology and Medicine: an Analysis of his Doctrines and Observations on Bloodflow, Respiration, Humors and Internal Diseases
Switzerland: S. Karger AG, 1968. Print.
. Basel,
Swain, Simon. Seeing the Face, Seeing the Soul. Polemon’s Physiognomy from Classical
Antiquity to Medieval Islam.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.
Szittya, Penn R. “The Antifraternal Tradition in Middle English Literature.”
Speculum , 52.2
(Apr., 1977): 287-313. Web. 18 June 2015.
Whitesell, J. Edwin. “Chaucer’s Lisping Friar.”
Modern Language Notes , Vol. 71, No. 3
(Mar., 1956), pp. 160-161. Web, 8 May 2015.
Margreet Pieper
36
Student form FOR BA PAPERS
Submitted for the degree in English Language and Culture at Utrecht University
To be completed by student stapled, this page up, to the front of the hard copy of the essay and included as the first two pages of the electronic document submitted to Igitur .
Name & student number
Address
Essay title
Course &
Group
Margreet Pieper
3958930
Reiderland 132
3524 BC Utrecht
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: the Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The
Canterbury Tales’
Bachelor Thesis
Supervisor: Marcelle Cole, Second reader: Lieke Stelling
Date &
Signature*
22/06/2015
*signifying you have read & understood the plagiarism declaration overleaf.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY STATEMENT
Utrecht University defines “plagiarism” as follows:
“If, in a thesis or some other paper, data or parts of a text produced by someone else are used without the source being identified, this shall be considered plagiarism. Among other things, plagiarism may entail the following: cutting and pasting text from digital sources such as encyclopaedias or digital journals, without using quotations marks and references; cutting and pasting any text from the internet without using quotation marks and references; copying from printed material such as books, journals or encyclopaedias without using quotations marks and references; using a translation of the above texts in your own work, without using quotations marks and references; paraphrasing the above texts without using references. A paraphrase should never consist of merely replacing some words by synonyms; using pictures, sound recordings, or test materials produced by others without references, such that it appears that this is one’s own work;
Physiognomy and Humoral Theory: The Portrayal of the Clergy in ‘The Canterbury Tales’
37 copying work by other students and passing this off as one’s own work. If this is done with the other student’s consent, the latter shall be an accomplice to the plagiarism; even in cases where plagiarism is committed by one of the authors collaborating on a paper, the other authors shall be accomplices to plagiarism if they could or ought to have known that the first-mentioned author was committing plagiarism; submitting papers acquired from a commercial source (such as an internet site offering summaries or complete essays) or written by someone else for payment.”
I have read the above definition of plagiarism and certify with my signature on the preceding page that I have not committed plagiarism in the appended essay or paper.
M.G. Pieper
