Why Is the Parson Considered the Moral Ideal in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales?
Author: MARTIN MUNYAO MUINDE
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Direct Answer
The Parson in Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Canterbury Tales” is considered the moral ideal because he embodies authentic Christian virtue through his poverty, dedication to his parishioners, personal holiness, and consistent practice of what he preaches. Unlike the corrupt clergy depicted throughout the Tales—including the Monk, Friar, Pardoner, and Summoner—the Parson lives simply, refuses to exploit his position for financial gain, visits his parishioners on foot regardless of weather, and treats rich and poor with equal pastoral care. His moral authority derives from the alignment between his teachings and his actions, making him Chaucer’s positive model of what medieval clergy should be. The Parson’s Tale, a prose sermon on penitence that concludes the entire Canterbury Tales, reinforces his role as moral guide, offering spiritual instruction rather than entertainment and providing the religious framework through which all the preceding tales should be judged.
Who Is the Parson in The Canterbury Tales?
The Parson is introduced in Chaucer’s General Prologue as a poor country priest whose spiritual wealth far exceeds his material poverty. Chaucer describes him as a “lerned man, a clerk, / That Cristes gospel trewely wolde preche” (a learned man, a cleric, who would truly preach Christ’s gospel), immediately establishing the Parson’s credentials as both educated and sincere (Chaucer, 1987). The emphasis on “truly” preaching distinguishes the Parson from other religious figures in the Tales who manipulate scripture for personal gain or present distorted versions of Christian teaching. The Parson’s learning is not merely academic but practical and pastoral, directed toward helping his parishioners understand and live according to Christian principles. His education serves the spiritual needs of his community rather than his own advancement, a stark contrast to characters like the Monk who uses his learning to justify his worldly lifestyle.
The Parson’s poverty is presented not as a failure but as a deliberate choice that enables authentic ministry. Chaucer notes that although the Parson is poor in worldly goods, he is “riche of holy thoght and werk” (rich in holy thought and work), establishing the fundamental Christian paradox that spiritual wealth surpasses material prosperity (Chaucer, 1987). This voluntary poverty aligns the Parson with Christ’s own example and with the apostolic ideal of simplicity that the early church embodied. In fourteenth-century England, where many clergy had become wealthy through the accumulation of benefices, the sale of indulgences, and the exploitation of their positions, the Parson’s poverty marked him as exceptional and counter-cultural (Bowden, 1948). His material simplicity freed him from the corrupting influence of wealth and allowed him to minister without the conflicts of interest that compromised other clergy. The Parson’s characterization establishes him from the outset as someone who has chosen the harder path of authentic discipleship over the easier path of worldly accommodation, making him Chaucer’s exemplar of clerical virtue in an age of widespread ecclesiastical corruption.
What Makes the Parson Different from Other Clergy in the Tales?
The Parson’s difference from other religious figures in The Canterbury Tales is most evident when his portrait is compared to those of the Monk, Friar, Pardoner, and Summoner, all of whom represent various forms of clerical corruption. The Monk is described as loving hunting, fine food, and expensive clothing, explicitly rejecting the austere Rule of Saint Benedict that should govern his monastic life (Chaucer, 1987). He represents the worldly cleric who has abandoned spiritual discipline for physical comfort and pleasure. The Friar exploits his position to seduce women and extract money from penitents, using his theological training to manipulate rather than guide souls. The Pardoner openly admits to selling fake relics and using rhetorical tricks to frighten simple people into purchasing indulgences, representing the complete cynical corruption of religious office for financial gain (Patterson, 1978). The Summoner uses his power to summon people to ecclesiastical courts as a tool for extortion and blackmail. Against this backdrop of corruption, exploitation, and hypocrisy, the Parson stands as a moral counterpoint, demonstrating that authentic Christian ministry remains possible even within a corrupt institutional church.
The fundamental difference between the Parson and these corrupt clergy lies in his relationship to money and power. Where other religious figures in the Tales seek wealth, the Parson embraces poverty; where they pursue power and status, he chooses service; where they exploit their parishioners, he serves them sacrificially (Rossiter, 1962). Chaucer emphasizes that the Parson would rather give his own meager resources to poor parishioners than demand tithes from them, directly inverting the extractive relationship that characterized much medieval clergy-parishioner interaction. The Parson refuses to leave his parish for a more lucrative position in London, content to serve his rural community despite the lack of financial reward or social prestige. This commitment to his calling over his comfort exemplifies the pastoral ideal that most clergy failed to achieve. The Parson’s difference is not merely behavioral but philosophical: he genuinely believes and lives according to the Christian principles that others merely profess. His integrity—the consistency between belief and action—makes him unique among the Canterbury pilgrims and establishes him as Chaucer’s model of authentic religious life.
How Does the Parson Demonstrate Christian Virtue?
The Parson demonstrates Christian virtue most powerfully through his pastoral care, which extends equally to rich and poor without discrimination or favoritism. Chaucer notes that the Parson would visit the farthest members of his parish on foot, carrying a staff and walking through rain and thunder to reach those who needed spiritual guidance or material assistance (Chaucer, 1987). This physical labor of pastoral visitation, undertaken regardless of weather or personal convenience, embodies the Christian principle of sacrificial love and the Good Shepherd who seeks out lost sheep. In an era when many clergy avoided their parishes entirely, collecting benefice income while residing elsewhere, the Parson’s active presence in his community represented a revolutionary commitment to actual ministry (Swanson, 1989). His willingness to endure hardship for his parishioners’ sake demonstrates that his vocation is genuine calling rather than merely career or source of income.
The Parson’s virtue is further demonstrated through his preaching and teaching, which emphasizes living the Christian life rather than merely knowing Christian doctrine. Chaucer states that the Parson would first practice what he taught, following the biblical principle that teachers must model the behavior they advocate: “If gold ruste, what shal iren do? / For if a preest be foul, on whom we truste, / No wonder is a lewed man to ruste” (If gold rusts, what shall iron do? For if a priest, in whom we trust, is foul, it’s no wonder that an uneducated man should rust) (Chaucer, 1987). This proverbial statement encapsulates the Parson’s understanding that clergy serve as moral exemplars whose behavior either enables or undermines their parishioners’ spiritual lives. His commitment to personal holiness is not narcissistic self-perfection but pedagogical modeling, recognizing that people learn virtue more from witnessing it than from hearing about it (Schlauch, 1937). The Parson combines rigorous moral standards with pastoral gentleness, being strict with himself while patient with others’ failures. He does not use his moral authority to condemn or control but to guide and encourage, embodying the balance between justice and mercy that Christian theology identifies as central to God’s character. This combination of personal discipline, sacrificial service, educational commitment, and pastoral gentleness makes the Parson Chaucer’s fullest portrait of Christian virtue in action.
What Is the Significance of the Parson’s Poverty?
The Parson’s poverty holds profound theological and social significance within the context of fourteenth-century debates about evangelical poverty and clerical corruption. The question of whether clergy should own property and accumulate wealth had been controversial for centuries, with reform movements consistently advocating for apostolic poverty as essential to authentic ministry (Cohn, 1970). The Parson’s voluntary poverty aligns him with this reform tradition, positioning him as someone who has recovered the simplicity of the early church against the institutional church’s accumulation of vast wealth and temporal power. His poverty is not merely economic circumstance but theological statement: it proclaims that spiritual authority derives from holiness rather than wealth, from service rather than power, from Christ-like humility rather than worldly status. In an age when bishops lived like princes and monasteries controlled enormous estates, the Parson’s simple rural poverty represented a radical critique of ecclesiastical economics.
The Parson’s poverty also has practical pastoral benefits that enhance his effectiveness as a spiritual guide. Because he lives at the same economic level as most of his parishioners, he understands their struggles, shares their hardships, and can speak to their concerns with authentic empathy rather than condescending charity (Jost, 1999). His poverty eliminates the barriers of wealth and status that separated most medieval clergy from their flocks, allowing genuine community between pastor and people. Furthermore, his poverty proves that his ministry is motivated by genuine vocation rather than financial interest, lending credibility to his teaching that might be lacking if he were wealthy. Parishioners can trust that the Parson’s guidance aims at their spiritual welfare rather than his financial benefit, a trust that was impossible with clergy who obviously exploited their positions for gain. The Parson’s poverty thus functions as both theological principle and practical methodology, enabling the authentic pastoral relationship that Chaucer presents as ideal. His example implicitly critiques the wealth-accumulation that characterized the medieval church, suggesting that poverty might not be an obstacle to effective ministry but rather its prerequisite, freeing clergy from the corrupting influence of wealth and realigning their priorities with the gospel’s emphasis on spiritual rather than material treasure.
How Does the Parson’s Tale Function as Moral Teaching?
The Parson’s Tale, which concludes The Canterbury Tales, functions as the moral and spiritual framework through which readers are invited to judge all the preceding tales and characters. Unlike the other tales, which are narratives designed to entertain, instruct, or win a storytelling competition, the Parson’s Tale is a lengthy prose sermon on the sacrament of penance, covering the topics of contrition, confession, and satisfaction (Chaucer, 1987). The tale’s homiletic form represents a deliberate shift from entertainment to instruction, from fiction to doctrine, from worldly wisdom to spiritual truth. This generic shift signals that the Canterbury pilgrimage, which has functioned as a frame for storytelling and social observation, is ultimately a spiritual journey requiring religious understanding and moral transformation (Allen & Moritz, 1981). The Parson’s refusal to tell a fable or fictional tale, insisting instead on spiritual instruction, represents his commitment to truth over entertainment and his understanding that the pilgrimage’s destination—Canterbury and the shrine of Thomas Becket—requires spiritual preparation.
The tale’s content provides systematic moral instruction that allows readers to evaluate the sins and virtues displayed throughout the Canterbury Tales. The Parson’s detailed exposition of the Seven Deadly Sins—pride, envy, anger, sloth, avarice, gluttony, and lechery—along with their remedial virtues, creates a taxonomic framework for understanding human behavior (Wenzel, 1984). Readers can recognize these sins in various pilgrims: the Monk’s gluttony and sloth, the Friar’s avarice, the Wife of Bath’s lechery, the Pardoner’s avarice and pride, and so forth. The tale thus retrospectively moralizes the entire work, suggesting that the apparently secular stories of human folly, desire, and conflict should be understood within a religious framework of sin and redemption. The Parson’s Tale functions as Chaucer’s way of preventing misreading of the Canterbury Tales as merely comic entertainment, insisting instead that the work has serious moral purpose (Finlayson, 1982). The sermon’s placement at the end, just before Chaucer’s own Retraction where he asks forgiveness for his worldly writings, suggests that both the Parson and Chaucer himself recognize the need for moral clarity and spiritual seriousness to balance the tales’ often irreverent humor and worldly concerns. The Parson’s Tale thus elevates the entire Canterbury Tales from social satire to moral literature, providing the religious perspective that allows readers to move from judgment of fictional characters to examination of their own souls.
Why Does the Parson Refuse to Tell a Fable?
The Parson’s refusal to tell a fable or fictional tale represents his theological conviction that truth-telling serves souls better than entertaining fiction. When the Host asks him for a tale, the Parson responds that he will not tell fables because Saint Paul condemns such vanities, and he will instead offer “Moralitee and vertuous mateere” (morality and virtuous matter) (Chaucer, 1987). This principled stance reflects medieval theological debates about the moral status of fiction, with some religious thinkers arguing that fictional narratives, even when morally instructive, promoted falsehood and distracted from spiritual truth (Minnis, 1982). The Parson aligns himself with the stricter position that direct moral instruction surpasses allegorical or fictional teaching, prioritizing clarity and doctrinal accuracy over aesthetic pleasure or imaginative engagement. His refusal suggests a pastoral concern that fiction might entertain without transforming, amuse without instructing, or even mislead through the seductive power of narrative.
The Parson’s generic choice also reflects his understanding of the Canterbury pilgrimage’s spiritual purpose and his role as moral guide to the other pilgrims. While other pilgrims have used their tales for self-revelation, social critique, or competitive display, the Parson sees his contribution as fundamentally different: he must provide spiritual direction for the journey’s conclusion and the pilgrims’ return to their ordinary lives (Patterson, 1978). The pilgrimage to Canterbury represents not merely physical travel but spiritual journey, and the Parson’s sermon prepares the pilgrims for their encounter with the sacred at Becket’s shrine and for their re-entry into secular life with renewed moral clarity. His refusal of fiction in favor of homily signals the shift from entertainment to spiritual seriousness, from worldly concerns to eternal matters, that should characterize the pilgrimage’s final stage. Furthermore, the Parson’s choice implicitly critiques the other pilgrims’ tales, suggesting that while they may have been entertaining, clever, or morally interesting, they lack the direct spiritual instruction that souls truly need (Finlayson, 1982). This critique is gentle but clear: the Parson does not condemn storytelling itself, but he insists that at certain moments and for certain purposes, direct truth-telling must replace entertaining fiction. His refusal thus establishes his moral authority over the other pilgrims, positioning him as the spiritual leader who guides them toward proper understanding of their pilgrimage’s meaning and their lives’ ultimate purpose.
What Is the Parson’s Relationship with His Brother, the Plowman?
The Parson’s relationship with his brother, the Plowman, extends the portrait of moral idealism beyond clergy to include the laity, demonstrating that authentic Christian virtue transcends social class and ecclesiastical office. Chaucer introduces the Plowman immediately after the Parson, describing him as living in peace and perfect charity, loving God above all things and his neighbor as himself, exactly as Christ commanded (Chaucer, 1987). The Plowman works hard, pays his tithes honestly, and helps his neighbors without expecting payment, embodying the lay equivalent of the Parson’s clerical virtue. The fraternal relationship between these two ideal characters suggests that true Christianity creates bonds of mutual respect and love that cross social boundaries, uniting the clerical and lay estates in common pursuit of holiness (Mann, 1973). Their brotherhood symbolizes the ideal relationship between clergy and laity, where priests guide and serve while laypeople support and practice the faith in their daily work.
The pairing of the Parson and Plowman also serves Chaucer’s social commentary about authentic versus corrupt Christianity in fourteenth-century England. While the corrupt clergy in the Tales—the Monk, Friar, Pardoner, and Summoner—associate with worldly, wealthy, or morally compromised figures, the holy Parson’s companion is a poor agricultural laborer who embodies honest labor and simple piety (Aers, 1986). This pairing suggests that genuine holiness aligns with poverty and labor rather than wealth and leisure, implicitly critiquing the medieval church’s alliance with political and economic power. The Plowman’s honest labor complements the Parson’s spiritual labor, suggesting that physical and spiritual work are equally valuable in God’s eyes and that the ideal Christian society involves mutual respect and cooperation between different social roles. Their brotherhood represents Chaucer’s vision of what Christian community should be: united by genuine virtue, mutual charity, and shared commitment to living according to gospel principles rather than divided by the social hierarchies, economic exploitation, and spiritual corruption that characterized actual medieval society. The Parson and Plowman together form Chaucer’s portrait of ideal Christianity, demonstrating that holiness is possible for both clergy and laity, for educated and uneducated, for those who work with minds and those who work with hands, when individuals genuinely commit themselves to Christ’s teachings.
How Does the Parson Contrast with Wycliffite and Lollard Criticism?
The Parson’s character engages with contemporary religious controversies, particularly the reform movement associated with John Wyclif and the Lollards, who criticized ecclesiastical wealth, clerical corruption, and various church practices. Scholars have debated whether Chaucer intended the Parson to represent Lollard sympathies, as the character embodies several positions associated with the reform movement: emphasis on preaching scripture, rejection of clerical wealth, criticism of ecclesiastical corruption, and commitment to pastoral care over institutional obligations (Bowers, 1990). The Parson’s poverty, his dedication to teaching, and his emphasis on living the gospel rather than merely professing it align with Lollard ideals of apostolic simplicity and biblical Christianity. However, the Parson remains orthodox in his theology, particularly in his tale’s treatment of the sacrament of penance, suggesting that Chaucer distinguished between legitimate reform concerns and heretical theological positions.
The Parson’s characterization thus allows Chaucer to critique ecclesiastical corruption without endorsing heresy, a delicate balance in an era when criticism of the church could lead to charges of Lollardy and potential execution (Somerset, 1998). By creating a character who embodies evangelical poverty and sincere ministry while remaining theologically orthodox, Chaucer suggests that church reform is necessary and possible without rejecting Catholic doctrine. The Parson represents what the clergy should be—poor, dedicated, learned, and holy—without advocating the more radical Lollard positions on transubstantiation, ecclesiastical hierarchy, or clerical celibacy that brought Wyclif’s followers into direct conflict with church authorities. This positioning allows Chaucer to participate in the widespread criticism of clerical corruption that characterized late medieval England while maintaining his own orthodoxy and avoiding dangerous association with heretical movements (Hudson, 1988). The Parson thus functions as Chaucer’s model of legitimate reform: changing clerical behavior and recovering authentic ministry without destroying institutional structures or abandoning traditional theology. This moderate reform position reflects Chaucer’s own apparent religious stance—critical of ecclesiastical abuses but loyal to Catholic Christianity—and his hope that the church could reform itself from within through the example of virtuous clergy like the Parson rather than requiring revolutionary transformation from without.
What Does the Parson Teach About Sin and Redemption?
The Parson’s Tale provides comprehensive instruction on sin and redemption through its systematic exposition of the sacrament of penance, which medieval theology identified as the primary means for post-baptismal forgiveness of sins. The tale divides penance into three parts: contrition (sincere sorrow for sin arising from love of God), confession (complete and honest disclosure of sins to a priest), and satisfaction (performing assigned penances to make amends for sin) (Chaucer, 1987). This tripartite structure reflects standard medieval penitential theology and provides a practical guide for how sinners can be reconciled with God and the church. The Parson’s emphasis on contrition as the essential foundation of penance stresses that external religious practices mean nothing without genuine internal transformation, a point that implicitly critiques the mechanical or mercenary approach to penance represented by figures like the Pardoner (Wenzel, 1989).
The tale’s detailed analysis of the Seven Deadly Sins and their remedies provides a comprehensive moral taxonomy that helps readers understand the nature and varieties of human sinfulness. For each deadly sin, the Parson describes its species (particular forms), its circumstances, and the opposing virtue that serves as remedy (Chaucer, 1987). This systematic approach reflects the medieval theological conviction that moral transformation requires understanding: people cannot avoid sins they cannot recognize or choose virtues they do not understand. The Parson’s teaching thus serves both diagnostic and therapeutic functions, helping readers identify sins in their own lives and providing guidance for how to overcome them through cultivating opposing virtues. The comprehensiveness of this moral instruction—covering sins of thought, word, and deed; sins against God, neighbor, and self; sins of commission and omission—demonstrates the Parson’s pastoral thoroughness and his commitment to addressing the full range of human moral failure (Wenzel, 1984). His teaching on redemption emphasizes both divine grace and human cooperation, maintaining the Catholic position that salvation involves God’s merciful forgiveness offered through Christ’s sacrifice and human response through repentance, confession, and moral transformation. The Parson’s balanced presentation avoids the extremes of either making salvation seem automatic and cheap or making it seem impossible to achieve, instead presenting it as available to all who genuinely repent and commit to living according to Christian principles.
Why Is the Parson’s Tale Placed at the End of the Canterbury Tales?
The Parson’s Tale occupies the climactic position in The Canterbury Tales because it provides the moral and spiritual framework through which all preceding tales should be understood and evaluated. Its placement at the end, as the pilgrims approach Canterbury and the conclusion of their journey, suggests that the entire pilgrimage has been moving toward this moment of spiritual instruction and moral clarity (Allen & Moritz, 1981). The progression from the secular, often bawdy tales of the journey’s beginning through increasingly serious and morally complex narratives to the Parson’s homiletic sermon represents a movement from worldly to spiritual concerns, from entertainment to instruction, from social observation to religious truth. This structural design implies that while the earlier tales have value in depicting human nature, exposing social hypocrisy, and exploring moral dilemmas, they require the Parson’s religious framework to achieve their full meaning and purpose.
The tale’s concluding position also reflects the Parson’s role as the pilgrims’ spiritual guide who must prepare them for their encounter with the sacred at Canterbury and for their return to ordinary life. The pilgrimage to Thomas Becket’s shrine is not merely tourism or social occasion but religious act, and the Parson’s sermon ensures that the pilgrims approach this sacred destination with appropriate spiritual preparation (Howard, 1976). By providing comprehensive instruction on sin and penance, the Parson enables the pilgrims to examine their consciences, recognize their failings, and seek forgiveness before encountering the shrine of a saint who died defending church principles against royal power. The sermon thus transforms the pilgrimage from entertainment—the storytelling competition that has occupied the journey—into genuine religious exercise aimed at spiritual transformation. Furthermore, the Parson’s Tale prepares the pilgrims for re-entry into their normal lives by providing moral instruction that can guide their behavior after they leave the liminal space of pilgrimage and return to their ordinary social roles and responsibilities (Patterson, 1978). The tale’s concluding position thus fulfills multiple functions: it moralizes the entire work, it prepares the pilgrims spiritually for Canterbury, and it provides ethical guidance for post-pilgrimage life, making the Parson the pilgrims’ ultimate guide and giving his voice the final word on the tales’ meaning and purpose.
Conclusion
The Parson in Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Canterbury Tales” stands as the unambiguous moral ideal among the Canterbury pilgrims, embodying authentic Christian virtue through his poverty, pastoral dedication, personal holiness, and consistent alignment of teaching and practice. In a work that exposes the corruption, hypocrisy, and moral failures of medieval society, particularly among the clergy, the Parson represents what religious life should be: simple, sincere, sacrificial, and oriented toward service rather than self-interest. His characterization demonstrates that genuine Christianity remains possible even within corrupt institutional structures and that individual holiness can persist despite widespread social and ecclesiastical decay. The Parson’s voluntary poverty, his tireless pastoral care for rich and poor alike, his refusal to exploit his position for gain, and his commitment to living the principles he teaches make him Chaucer’s positive exemplar against which all other characters are implicitly measured and often found wanting.
The Parson’s Tale reinforces his role as moral guide by providing the religious framework through which the entire Canterbury Tales should be understood. Its placement at the work’s conclusion signals the pilgrimage’s movement from worldly entertainment to spiritual seriousness, from social satire to religious instruction, from human comedy to divine truth. Through the Parson, Chaucer articulates his vision of authentic Christianity and suggests that church reform requires not institutional revolution but individual virtue, not theological innovation but practical holiness, not criticism alone but positive example. The Parson’s moral authority derives not from his office, learning, or rhetorical skill—though he possesses these—but from the integrity between his beliefs and actions, making him Chaucer’s answer to the question of what genuine religious life looks like in a corrupt age. His character remains relevant today as a portrait of moral leadership based on service rather than power, humility rather than status, and authentic virtue rather than merely professed values.
References
Aers, D. (1986). Chaucer, Langland and the Creative Imagination. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Allen, J. B., & Moritz, T. A. (1981). A Distinction of Stories: The Medieval Unity of Chaucer’s Fair Chain of Narratives for Canterbury. Ohio State University Press.
Bowden, M. (1948). A Commentary on the General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales. Macmillan.
Bowers, J. M. (1990). The Canterbury Tales: Politically Corrected. The Chaucer Review, 25(2), 99-122.
Chaucer, G. (1987). The Canterbury Tales (L. D. Benson, Ed.). Houghton Mifflin Company.
Cohn, N. (1970). The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages. Oxford University Press.
Finlayson, J. (1982). The Satiric Mode and the Parson’s Tale. The Chaucer Review, 6(2), 94-116.
Howard, D. R. (1976). The Idea of the Canterbury Tales. University of California Press.
Hudson, A. (1988). The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History. Clarendon Press.
Jost, J. E. (1999). Chaucer’s Humor: Critical Essays. Garland Publishing.
Mann, J. (1973). Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire. Cambridge University Press.
Minnis, A. J. (1982). Chaucer’s Commentator: The Prologue to his Treatise on the Astrolabe. Studies in the Age of Chaucer, 4, 1-22.
Patterson, L. (1978). The Parson’s Tale and the Quitting of the Canterbury Tales. Traditio, 34, 331-380.
Rossiter, W. T. (1962). Chaucer’s Idea of What Is Noble. Duke University Press.
Schlauch, M. (1937). The Art of Chaucer’s Prose. In Chaucer and Chaucerians (pp. 140-163). University of Alabama Press.
Somerset, F. (1998). Clerical Discourse and Lay Audience in Late Medieval England. Cambridge University Press.
Swanson, R. N. (1989). Church and Society in Late Medieval England. Basil Blackwell.
Wenzel, S. (1984). The Sin of Sloth: Acedia in Medieval Thought and Literature. University of North Carolina Press.
Wenzel, S. (1989). The Source of the Parson’s Tale. Traditio, 45, 1-55.