How Does Chaucer Portray the Friar’s Corruption of Religious Duties in The Canterbury Tales?
Author: MARTIN MUNYAO MUINDE
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Geoffrey Chaucer portrays the Friar in “The Canterbury Tales” as a thoroughly corrupt religious figure who systematically betrays his sacred vows and exploits his ecclesiastical authority for personal pleasure and profit. Named Hubert, the Friar abandons the fundamental mendicant ideals of poverty, humility, and service to the poor, instead cultivating relationships with wealthy merchants and attractive women while avoiding lepers, beggars, and other marginalized people he is sworn to serve. Chaucer’s characterization reveals how the Friar corrupts specific religious duties including hearing confessions (accepting money for easy penances), administering charity (directing resources to the rich rather than the poor), preaching (entertaining for profit rather than instructing for salvation), and maintaining chastity (engaging in sexual relationships and arranging marriages for women he has seduced). Through vivid physical descriptions, behavioral details, and ironic narrative commentary, Chaucer presents the Friar as emblematic of the widespread corruption within medieval mendicant orders, whose members had strayed far from their founders’ original ideals of apostolic poverty and evangelical service. This characterization serves Chaucer’s broader critique of how institutional religion had become commercialized and worldly in fourteenth-century England.
What Were the Original Ideals of Medieval Friars?
Understanding the depth of the Friar’s corruption requires first examining the founding principles and religious duties of mendicant orders in medieval Christianity. Friars, or mendicants, emerged in the early thirteenth century through the efforts of reformers like St. Francis of Assisi and St. Dominic who sought to renew Christian spirituality through radical adherence to apostolic poverty and active ministry among the people (Lawrence, 1994). Unlike monks who lived in enclosed monasteries, friars moved through society preaching, hearing confessions, and serving the poor while owning no property and surviving on charitable donations. The term “friar” derives from the Latin “frater” meaning brother, emphasizing their identity as spiritual brothers to all Christians regardless of social status. The four main mendicant orders—Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, and Augustinians—all shared commitment to three fundamental vows: poverty (owning no personal or communal property), chastity (maintaining celibacy), and obedience (submitting to religious superiors and church authority). These vows distinguished friars from secular clergy like parish priests and positioned them as models of evangelical perfection.
The specific religious duties of friars centered on spiritual care for laypeople, particularly those neglected by the established church hierarchy. Friars were licensed to preach publicly, hear confessions, and grant absolution—privileges that brought them into direct competition with parish priests who resented this encroachment on their traditional authority (Szittya, 1986). Franciscans especially emphasized serving the poorest and most marginalized members of society, including lepers, beggars, prisoners, and the sick, following St. Francis’s example of radical identification with Christ’s poverty. Friars were expected to support themselves through manual labor and modest begging, accepting only what they needed for immediate survival and refusing to accumulate wealth or property. Their preaching aimed at moral instruction and spiritual conversion rather than entertainment, and their confessional practices were supposed to impose genuine penances that would lead sinners to repentance and reform. By Chaucer’s time in the late fourteenth century, however, these original ideals had significantly eroded, and friars had gained widespread notoriety for corruption, greed, and hypocrisy. Chaucer’s audience would have brought considerable skepticism and even hostility toward friars to their reading of Hubert’s portrait (Williams, 1953).
How Does Chaucer Describe the Friar’s Physical Appearance and Demeanor?
Chaucer begins his characterization of the Friar by emphasizing his sociability, charm, and carefully cultivated appearance, immediately suggesting priorities incompatible with genuine religious devotion. The General Prologue introduces Hubert as “a wantowne and a merye” friar, terms that convey both his cheerful disposition and his self-indulgent, pleasure-seeking nature (Chaucer, 1987, line 208). The word “wantowne” particularly carries connotations of excessive playfulness bordering on moral laxity, hinting at the character flaws that subsequent details will confirm. Chaucer notes that the Friar possessed exceptional social skills, being “ful solempne” in his manner and highly skilled at pleasant conversation and entertainment (Chaucer, 1987, line 209). This social polish, while initially appearing positive, actually reveals the Friar’s worldliness and his cultivation of attributes valuable for manipulating others rather than serving their spiritual needs. His demeanor contrasts sharply with the humble, austere bearing expected of someone committed to apostolic poverty and self-denial.
Physical descriptions further emphasize the Friar’s worldly concerns and comfortable lifestyle. Chaucer mentions his “nekke whit” suggesting good health and adequate nutrition uncommon among those genuinely living in poverty (Chaucer, 1987, line 238). His eyes “twynkled in his heed aright / As doon the sterres in the frosty nyght,” conveying a lively, charming appearance that attracts rather than the grave, contemplative aspect appropriate for religious authority (Chaucer, 1987, lines 267-268). Most tellingly, Chaucer describes the Friar’s expensive clothing, noting he wore a “semycope” (a short cape) of costly fabric, suggesting he had abandoned the simple, rough habits originally required of Franciscans in favor of fashionable, comfortable dress (Chaucer, 1987, line 262). The detail that his “tipet was ay farsed ful of knyves / And pynnes, for to yeven faire wyves” reveals his practice of carrying small gifts to distribute to attractive women, demonstrating how thoroughly he has corrupted his begging privileges by using them for seduction rather than survival (Chaucer, 1987, lines 233-234). These physical details collectively portray a man who has thoroughly accommodated himself to worldly comfort and pleasure, abandoning the ascetic ideals of mendicant life (Mann, 1973).
How Does the Friar Corrupt the Sacrament of Confession?
One of the Friar’s most serious corruptions involves his abuse of confessional authority, transforming the sacrament of penance from a means of genuine spiritual reformation into a profitable business transaction. Chaucer explicitly states that the Friar was “an esy man to yeve penaunce / Ther as he wiste to have a good pitaunce” (Chaucer, 1987, lines 223-224). This couplet encapsulates the Friar’s corruption: he grants lenient penances not according to the seriousness of sins or the penitent’s spiritual needs but in direct proportion to the payment he expects to receive. The sacrament of penance in medieval theology required three essential components: contrition (genuine sorrow for sin), confession (acknowledgment of wrongdoing), and satisfaction (performing assigned penances to make amends). The confessor’s role involved discerning true repentance, offering spiritual counsel, and assigning penances appropriate to guide sinners toward reformation (Tentler, 1977). By commodifying absolution, the Friar betrays this sacred trust and enables continued sinfulness among those who can afford his services.
The Friar’s corrupt confessional practices extend beyond mere leniency to include false theological claims that justify his approach. Chaucer reports that the Friar argued “ful swetely herde he confessioun / And plesaunt was his absolucioun” (Chaucer, 1987, lines 221-222), emphasizing the pleasantness of the experience rather than its spiritual efficacy. More troublingly, the Friar claims that giving money to poor friars represents adequate penance for serious sins: “For if he yaf, he dorste make avaunt / He wiste that a man was repentaunt” (Chaucer, 1987, lines 225-226). This reasoning inverts proper theology by suggesting external donations can substitute for internal spiritual transformation and genuine contrition. The passage continues with the Friar’s argument that “many a man so hard is of his herte / He may nat wepe, althogh hym soore smerte” and therefore should give silver to friars instead of weeping for sins (Chaucer, 1987, lines 229-230). This sophistical argument excuses wealthy sinners from the emotional and spiritual work of true repentance, allowing them to purchase absolution while continuing their sinful behaviors. The corruption here extends beyond personal avarice to constitute theological fraud that endangers souls by offering false assurance of salvation (Wenzel, 1989).
What Is the Friar’s Relationship with the Poor and Marginalized?
Chaucer’s most damning critique of the Friar concerns his complete inversion of the mendicant duty to serve the poor and marginalized. The General Prologue explicitly states that “It is nat honest, it may nat avaunce / For to deelen with no swich poraille / But al with riche and selleres of vitaille” (Chaucer, 1987, lines 246-248). The Friar considers it beneath his dignity (“nat honest”) and unprofitable (“nat avaunce”) to associate with poor people (“poraille”), preferring instead to cultivate relationships with wealthy individuals and food merchants who can provide substantial benefits. This attitude represents a complete betrayal of Franciscan ideals, as St. Francis specifically identified with the poor and marginalized, calling poverty his bride and choosing to serve lepers, beggars, and outcasts whom others avoided (Moorman, 1968). The Friar’s social climbing and strategic relationship-building with the wealthy directly contradicts his vow of poverty and his fundamental duty to serve those most in need of spiritual and material assistance.
Chaucer emphasizes this corruption further by noting that wherever the Friar expected profit “Ther nas no man nowher so vertuous / He was the beste beggere in his hous” (Chaucer, 1987, lines 251-252). This passage ironically praises the Friar’s effectiveness at begging while revealing his mercenary motivations—he excels at extraction rather than service. The text continues by explaining his begging territory was exclusively his through payment to his order, and he could earn more in a day than others in a month, demonstrating how thoroughly the mendicant system had become commercialized (Chaucer, 1987, lines 252-255). Most tellingly, Chaucer describes the Friar’s behavior toward different social classes: “Unto his ordre he was a noble post. / Ful wel biloved and famulier was he / With frankeleyns over al in his contree / And eek with worthy wommen of the toun” (Chaucer, 1987, lines 214-217). The Friar cultivates familiar relationships with wealthy landowners and respectable women who can advance his interests, while avoiding the sick, poor, and marginalized who most need his ministry. This strategic networking reveals a calculating worldliness fundamentally incompatible with religious vocation (Szittya, 1986).
How Does the Friar Violate His Vow of Chastity?
The Friar’s corruption extends to systematic violation of his vow of chastity, as Chaucer presents him as sexually active and exploitative in his relationships with women. The General Prologue reveals that the Friar “hadde maad ful many a mariage / Of yonge wommen at his owene cost” (Chaucer, 1987, lines 212-213). This euphemistic statement suggests the Friar seduced young women and then paid for their marriages to other men to resolve the resulting pregnancies or damaged reputations. Medieval audiences would have understood this reference to acknowledge the Friar’s sexual activity with multiple women, followed by his financial arrangements to avoid scandal and continuing responsibility (Mann, 1973). The phrase “at his owene cost” indicates he used money obtained through his begging and confessional privileges to pay dowries or marriage expenses, thus compounding his corruption by diverting charitable donations toward covering up his sexual misconduct. This behavior represents complete betrayal of his chastity vow and demonstrates predatory exploitation of vulnerable women who trusted his religious authority.
Additional details confirm the Friar’s ongoing sexual interests and manipulative approach to women. His practice of carrying “knyves and pynnes, for to yeven faire wyves” demonstrates calculated seduction techniques, using small gifts to gain favor with attractive women (Chaucer, 1987, lines 233-234). The specification of “faire wyves” (pretty wives) rather than all women reveals his selective interest based on physical attractiveness and indicates he pursued married women, not only unmarried girls. His charming manner, pleasant voice, and skill at singing and playing instruments all serve his seduction efforts rather than religious purposes (Chaucer, 1987, lines 266-267). The Friar’s corruption in this area proves particularly egregious because it exploits the power imbalance inherent in his religious role—women who trusted his spiritual authority and confided their sins became targets for his sexual advances. This abuse of confessional knowledge and religious trust represents one of the most serious betrayals possible for a spiritual leader, as it transforms the sacrament of penance from an opportunity for healing and grace into a predatory hunting ground for sexual exploitation (Bowden, 1948).
What Does the Friar’s Tale Reveal About His Character?
The Friar’s tale, told in response to the Summoner who has insulted friars, provides additional insight into his character through both its content and its motivation. The narrative describes a corrupt summoner who partners with a devil and ultimately finds himself damned to hell when an old woman curses him sincerely. The tale clearly aims to attack summoners as a profession, functioning as a vengeful response to the Summoner’s earlier insulting remarks about friars (Chaucer, 1987). This vindictive motivation reveals the Friar’s worldly pride and his inability to respond to criticism with Christian charity or humility. Rather than demonstrating the forgiveness and spiritual elevation expected from a religious figure, the Friar engages in petty professional rivalry, using his storytelling platform to defame another group of church officials. The tale’s moralizing about greed and corruption carries dramatic irony, as the Friar proves just as avaricious and corrupt as the summoner he criticizes, though he lacks the self-awareness to recognize this parallel (Patterson, 1983).
The tale’s theological content and style further illuminate the Friar’s character and his approach to preaching. While the narrative contains a surface moral about the dangers of cursing and the reality of divine justice, it emphasizes entertaining narrative over deep spiritual instruction. The story’s supernatural elements—the devil appearing in various forms, the conversations between devil and summoner—provide dramatic interest but little genuine theological depth or practical guidance for Christian living. The Friar’s preaching style, both in the tale and as described in the General Prologue, prioritizes rhetorical pleasure and audience approval over challenging listeners to authentic spiritual transformation (Wenzel, 1989). This approach reflects his broader corruption of religious duties: just as he makes confession pleasant rather than demanding, he makes preaching entertaining rather than convicting. The tale reveals a preacher who has mastered the external forms and techniques of religious discourse while abandoning its true purposes of instructing, correcting, and guiding souls toward salvation. His performance demonstrates how skill in religious communication can be deployed for personal advancement rather than spiritual service (Leicester, 1990).
How Does the Friar’s Character Compare to Other Religious Figures in The Canterbury Tales?
Examining the Friar alongside other religious characters in “The Canterbury Tales” illuminates Chaucer’s nuanced critique of ecclesiastical corruption while acknowledging possibilities for genuine virtue. The most obvious comparison involves the Parson, who represents everything the Friar is not: truly devoted to his spiritual duties, living modestly despite opportunities for enrichment, serving his poor parishioners with dedication, and embodying the teachings he preaches (Chaucer, 1987, lines 477-528). Where the Friar cultivates relationships with the wealthy and avoids the poor, the Parson “was to synful men nat despitous” and served his impoverished parish faithfully even in difficult weather and circumstances (Chaucer, 1987, line 517). This contrast suggests Chaucer does not condemn religious authority itself but rather specific individuals who corrupt their sacred responsibilities. The Parson’s existence demonstrates that the ecclesiastical system could produce genuinely virtuous clergy when individuals maintained proper priorities and sincere devotion.
The Friar also invites comparison with other corrupt religious figures in the Tales, particularly the Monk and the Summoner, creating a spectrum of ecclesiastical failings. The Monk, like the Friar, has abandoned his order’s founding ideals, preferring hunting and fine living to monastic discipline (Mann, 1973). However, the Monk’s corruption remains more passive—he simply neglects his duties rather than actively exploiting others. The Summoner, conversely, demonstrates more overt exploitation and corruption, accepting bribes and manipulating the ecclesiastical court system. The Friar occupies a middle position, combining the Monk’s self-indulgent lifestyle with more active exploitation of his religious authority for personal gain. Unlike the Pardoner, who openly admits his fraudulent practices, the Friar maintains a façade of piety and apparently believes his own rationalizations about serving God while pursuing wealth and pleasure. This self-deception perhaps makes the Friar’s corruption more insidious than the Pardoner’s frank cynicism, as it demonstrates how individuals can thoroughly compromise their principles while maintaining subjective conviction of righteousness (Cooper, 1996).
What Historical Context Explains the Friar’s Corruption?
The Friar’s characterization reflects genuine historical developments and controversies surrounding mendicant orders in fourteenth-century England. The friars’ initial popularity and spiritual authority had significantly eroded by Chaucer’s time, replaced by widespread criticism and resentment from both secular clergy and laypeople (Szittya, 1986). Parish priests particularly resented friars’ privileges to hear confessions and preach in their territories, seeing them as competitors who drew away both penitents and the donations that accompanied them. This conflict generated extensive anti-fraternal literature in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, including works by William of St. Amour, Jean de Meun, and Wycliffite writers who attacked friars for abandoning apostolic poverty, exploiting confession for profit, and living luxuriously while claiming mendicant status. Chaucer’s portrait draws on this established tradition of anti-fraternal satire while demonstrating literary sophistication in creating an individualized character rather than a mere stereotype (Williams, 1953).
Historical records confirm that the corruptions Chaucer attributes to Hubert reflected real practices among some friars. By the fourteenth century, mendicant orders had accumulated substantial wealth through donations and bequests, despite theoretical commitments to corporate poverty. Friars developed systematic begging territories called “limitours” which they purchased or received by assignment, treating these areas as exclusive fundraising domains (Penn, 2009). Complaints about friars accepting money for easy confessions, avoiding genuine service to the poor, and maintaining inappropriate relationships with women appear regularly in ecclesiastical court records and pastoral literature. The specific detail about arranging marriages for seduced women reflects documented cases where friars faced charges of sexual misconduct and subsequent coverup attempts. While many individual friars undoubtedly maintained sincere devotion to their vows, institutional pressures toward fundraising and organizational maintenance created systematic incentives for the corruptions Chaucer satirizes. The need to support elaborate convents, churches, and educational programs drove friars toward increasingly aggressive and ethically questionable fundraising practices, transforming mendicant poverty into a profitable enterprise (Lawrence, 1994).
What Literary Techniques Does Chaucer Employ in Characterizing the Friar?
Chaucer demonstrates sophisticated literary craftsmanship in his characterization of the Friar through various techniques that create both vivid immediacy and complex meaning. Ironic narration proves central to the characterization, as the General Prologue’s narrator describes the Friar’s corrupt practices in apparently admiring or neutral terms that invite readers to recognize the gap between surface praise and underlying criticism (Donaldson, 1970). For example, calling the Friar “worthy” and noting he was “the beste beggere in his hous” appears initially complimentary but carries satirical weight when readers understand this “excellence” consists of superior exploitation and manipulation. This ironic technique engages readers as active interpreters rather than passive recipients of moral judgment, making the satire more effective precisely because it requires reader participation in recognizing the corruption beneath the pleasant surface.
Chaucer also employs strategic detail selection and concrete particularity to create a fully realized character while implicitly revealing moral failings. The specific gifts of knives and pins for pretty wives, the white neck suggesting good nutrition, the twinkling eyes, the short cape of expensive fabric—each concrete detail simultaneously contributes to vivid characterization and carries symbolic or moral significance (Kolve, 1984). The accumulation of these details creates what might be called “satirical realism,” where the text’s documentary precision in depicting contemporary social types serves simultaneously to entertain through recognition and to critique through exposure. Additionally, Chaucer uses structural contrast and positioning within the General Prologue’s sequence of portraits to enhance characterization. Placing the Friar’s corrupt portrait near descriptions of other religious figures invites comparison and emphasizes the range of possibilities within ecclesiastical roles. The use of the Friar’s own tale later in the work provides additional characterization through dramatic revelation, as the tale’s content, style, and motivation illuminate aspects of personality not fully visible in the initial portrait (Ruggiers, 1965).
How Does the Friar Represent Institutional Rather Than Individual Corruption?
While Chaucer creates Hubert as an individual character with specific traits and behaviors, the Friar’s portrait ultimately represents institutional and systematic corruption within mendicant orders rather than merely personal moral failing. The carefully detailed descriptions of the Friar’s practices—his exclusive begging territory, his systematic cultivation of wealthy patrons, his organized approach to confession and fundraising—all suggest established patterns rather than individual aberrations (Penn, 2009). The very specificity of these details, reflecting documented historical practices, indicates Chaucer critiques not simply one corrupt friar but a system that enables and even encourages such corruption. The Friar’s success at begging and his status as “the beste” in his convent implies this approach brings institutional reward rather than censure, suggesting the religious order itself has embraced commercialized priorities that contradict founding ideals.
Furthermore, the Friar’s confident theological rationalizations for his practices suggest he operates within an established framework of self-justification that has become normalized within his order. His argument that wealthy sinners need not weep but can give silver instead reflects corruption of mendicant theology that has been systematized and taught rather than individually invented (Wenzel, 1989). The fact that Hubert can openly practice these corruptions without apparent fear of discipline from religious superiors indicates institutional complicity or at least toleration of behaviors that violate the order’s supposed principles. Chaucer’s characterization thus functions as institutional critique, exposing how organizations founded on radical ideals can gradually accommodate themselves to worldly values until corruption becomes normalized and even celebrated as effectiveness. This pattern of institutional decay from founding ideals represents a recurring theme in Chaucer’s work and reflects his sophisticated understanding of how corruption often results from systemic incentives and organizational cultures rather than simply individual moral weakness (Strohm, 1989).
What Theological and Moral Issues Does the Friar’s Corruption Raise?
The Friar’s character raises profound theological and moral questions about the nature of spiritual authority, the relationship between external office and internal virtue, and the possibility of valid sacraments administered by corrupt ministers. Medieval theology struggled with questions about whether sacraments remained effective when performed by sinful priests, ultimately affirming that sacramental validity depended on Christ’s power rather than the minister’s worthiness (ex opere operato doctrine). However, this theological position, while protecting believers from uncertainty about their salvation, also potentially enabled clerical corruption by separating office from personal holiness (Tentler, 1977). The Friar exploits this separation, relying on his ecclesiastical authority to grant valid absolution while living in flagrant violation of his vows and manipulating the sacrament for personal profit. His character thus illustrates the dangers inherent in systems that invest spiritual power in offices rather than persons, creating opportunities for those who maintain external forms while abandoning internal reality.
Additionally, the Friar’s corruption raises questions about culpability when institutional pressures drive individual wrongdoing. While Chaucer clearly critiques Hubert’s choices and behaviors, the portrait also reveals systematic incentives that make such corruption almost inevitable given human weakness. The need to support elaborate mendicant institutions, the competitive pressure between orders and between friars and secular clergy, the absence of effective oversight and accountability—all these factors create an environment where corruption flourishes (Lawrence, 1994). This recognition complicates simple moral condemnation by suggesting that institutional reform requires more than individual virtue; it demands structural changes in how religious organizations operate and fund themselves. The Friar’s character thus invites reflection on how good intentions and idealistic founding principles can gradually be corrupted through institutional evolution, and how difficult it proves to maintain spiritual integrity when surrounded by systemic incentives toward compromise and self-interest (Leicester, 1990).
What Modern Relevance Does the Friar’s Characterization Hold?
The Friar’s characterization retains significant relevance for contemporary readers despite the obvious differences between medieval mendicant orders and modern religious institutions. The fundamental dynamics of religious hypocrisy, exploitation of spiritual authority for personal gain, and the gap between professed values and actual behavior transcend specific historical contexts (Penn, 2009). Modern scandals involving religious leaders who violate their vows, exploit their positions for financial or sexual advantage, and rationalize their behavior through distorted theology echo the patterns Chaucer identified in fourteenth-century friars. The Friar’s practice of cultivating wealthy donors while neglecting the poor parallels contemporary critiques of prosperity gospel preachers and religious organizations that prioritize fundraising over service. His transformation of confession from spiritual discipline into profitable business resembles modern concerns about commercialized religion and the commodification of spiritual experiences.
Furthermore, the Friar’s character illuminates persistent questions about institutional corruption and the challenge of maintaining founding ideals over time. Organizations established with sincere devotion to service, poverty, and spiritual values frequently experience mission drift as they grow, professionalize, and require increasing resources to sustain themselves (Bowden, 1948). The Friar represents this trajectory from radical idealism to comfortable accommodation with worldly values, a pattern observable not only in religious contexts but also in non-profit organizations, social movements, and idealistic ventures of various kinds. His confident self-justification and apparent inability to recognize his own corruption speak to how individuals can thoroughly compromise their principles while maintaining subjective conviction of righteousness, a psychological dynamic highly relevant to understanding contemporary ethical failures. Chaucer’s fourteenth-century portrait thus continues to offer insight into timeless patterns of institutional decay, religious hypocrisy, and the human capacity for self-deception in service of self-interest (Cooper, 1996).
References
Bowden, M. (1948). A Commentary on the General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. Macmillan.
Chaucer, G. (1987). The Canterbury Tales. In L. D. Benson (Ed.), The Riverside Chaucer (3rd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
Cooper, H. (1996). The Canterbury Tales (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Donaldson, E. T. (1970). Speaking of Chaucer. W. W. Norton.
Kolve, V. A. (1984). Chaucer and the Imagery of Narrative: The First Five Canterbury Tales. Stanford University Press.
Lawrence, C. H. (1994). The Friars: The Impact of the Early Mendicant Movement on Western Society. Longman.
Leicester, H. M., Jr. (1990). The Disenchanted Self: Representing the Subject in the Canterbury Tales. University of California Press.
Mann, J. (1973). Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire: The Literature of Social Classes and the General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales. Cambridge University Press.
Moorman, J. R. H. (1968). A History of the Franciscan Order from Its Origins to the Year 1517. Oxford University Press.
Patterson, L. (1983). “What man artow?”: Authorial self-definition in The Tale of Sir Thopas and The Tale of Melibee. Studies in the Age of Chaucer, 11, 117-175.
Penn, S. A. C. (2009). Wills and will-making in late medieval Bristol. The Ricardian, 19, 101-114.
Ruggiers, P. G. (1965). The Art of the Canterbury Tales. University of Wisconsin Press.
Strohm, P. (1989). Social Chaucer. Harvard University Press.
Szittya, P. R. (1986). The Antifraternal Tradition in Medieval Literature. Princeton University Press.
Tentler, T. N. (1977). Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation. Princeton University Press.
Wenzel, S. (1989). Preachers, Poets, and the Early English Lyric. Princeton University Press.
Williams, A. (1953). Chaucer and the friars. Speculum, 28(3), 499-513.