{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034854771784232366, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006639004149377593, 'mean_word_length': 4.882926829268293, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Corporeal and Spiritual Homicide, the Sin of Wrath, and the ‘Parson's Tale’

Even though Chaucer the Pilgrim refers to ‘the povre Persoun of a toun’ as a ‘lerned man, a clerk,’ it is still surprising to hear the humble Parson discourse at length on one of the fine points of canon law. And yet, despite his own protestation of ignorance, the Parson devotes sixteen lines (654–79) of his discussion of Wrath to distinguishing between the many species and sub-species of corporeal and spiritual homicide. Upon closer examination of the passage itself, we are more inclined to take the Parson at his word. Where we are promised ‘foure maneres’ of homicide in deed, we get only three, while in place of the anticipated fourth category we find a discussion of the various forms of infanticide, contraception, and abortion. Although Chaucer rightly identifies these as types of homicide, they hardly comprise a major classification to rank alongside the other three ‘maneres.’ Further evidence of confusion in the passage is a textual problem, which involves the number of species of spiritual homicide. The manuscripts read, ‘spiritueel manslaughtre is in vj thynges’ (545) when, in fact, only three are named.