Essays on Chaucer’s Saints by Ann S. Haskell (review)

REVIEWS E. T. Donaldson some years ago. Chaucer and Ovid deserves, nay demands, careful attention from all Chaucerians; it should inspire a series of critical initiatives aimed at building upon the solid foundation Fyler has laid. R. W. HANNING Columbia University ANN S. HASKELL, Essays on Chaucer's Saints. Studies in English Literature, No. 107. The Hague-Paris: Mouton, 1976. Pp. vi, 84. $13.50. The allusions to saints in the canon of Chaucer's works have been an abiding interest of Professor Haskell's from the days of her own graduate seminars to the present. In this volume she has brought together ten essays, six of which were not previously available in print: "The Pardon­ er's St. Ronyan," "The St. Loy Oath Reconsidered," "Hende Old St. Nicholas in the Miller's Tale," "St. Nicholas and the Prioress's Calen­ dar," "St. Nicholas and the Prioress's 'cursedJewes'," and "Attributes of Anger in the Summoner's Tale (St. Thomas of India)." Three others, "The Host's precious corpus Madrian," "The St. Giles Oath in the Canon's Yeoman's Tale," and "St. Simon [Magus-a 'non-saint'] in the Sum­ moner's Tale," are only slightly altered from their originals in}EGP (1968), ChauR (1973), and ChauR (1971). "The St. Joce Oath in the Wife of Bath's Prologue," however, includes a good deal more suppor­ tive evidence than its original in ChauR ( 1966). Haskell's concern in these essays is with several of the so-called "referential saints," those who, by allusion, provide points of reference for interpreting characters or tales. While not claiming that the allusions provide "the key to the Canterbury Tales," and denying that such a key exists (p. 4), she demonstrates successfully, on the whole, Chaucer's use of them in various contexts for double entendre, and ironic complement or contrast. Her task is difficult, seen from a scholarly point of view, as the average of 38 notes per essay would suggest. Often Chaucer's allusion may refer to several saints of similar name (Ronyan could be Ronan, Ronon, Ruman, or Ninian!). Then, while it is accepted that medieval people were far more familiar with saints and their legends than we are, Haskell must establish that the given saint she is proposing was suffi­ ciently known to Chaucer's audience for the effect of the allusion to be 165 STUDIES IN THE AGE OF CHAUCER felt. Finally she must determine how far into particular incident and detail, beyond the general outlines of the saint's legend and the symbols traditionally associated with him (such as Peter's keys), it is reasonable to assume that Chaucer intended the allusion to extend. Her most convincing essays are those on the Miller's Nicholas, recalling St. Nicholas, and the Summoner's Thomas, recalling St. Tho­ mas the Apostle. For in these the allusions to saints analyzed are not in oaths, which at least seem to be things of the moment, but in the names of major characters. Thus, correspondences between legend and tale may be looked for throughout the entire tale without any question of credibility, as opposed to a much shorter range of lines surrounding an oath. In the latter example, Haskell shows how Chaucer has enhanced the tale of a greedy friar's begging for money, supposedly for the support of his order, and groping for treasure at a nether opening in Thomas's body, by recalling in irony the saint who, legend has it, disdained gold, but yet built churches, and who learned a lesson of faith by thrusting his hand into Christ's open wounds. In several of the essays, however, the reader, though intrigued by the possibilities, is left with some doubt-never as to the validity of her thesis, but as to the validity of some of the evidence she proposes in regard to the third of the scholarly problems mentioned above. For example, in reconsidering the St. Loy oath, Haskell argues that the Prioress would be attracted not only to St. Loy for his own courtly reputation as a romance hero, but to the sainted nuns who were his religious protegees. John H. Steadman had discussed one of them, St...