{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02774922918807811, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006166495375128468, 'mean_word_length': 5.321428571428571, '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}}
Frances McCormack, Chaucer and the Culture of Dissent: The Lollard Context and Subtext of the Parson's Tale

Many books have the potential to be misunderstood and Frances McCormack’s book might fulfill that potential more often than most. Her thorough and nuanced analysis of the Parson’s Tale invites readers to rethink the scholarly consensus on the Tale’s orthodoxy not only by showing the Tale’s indebtedness to Lollard language and ideas, but also by explaining why these often are indistinguishable from orthodox ones. Needless to say, this elegant and attractive premise might disappoint readers who seek conclusive evidence of the Tale’s heterodoxy. In McCormack’s reading, “the Parson does not adopt categorically a Lollard or antiLollard position. Rather, Chaucer permits his reader to interact with this character, to act as his inquisitor, and to assess the subversiveness of his Tale” (236). McCormack maintains her focus on the Tale’s ambiguity throughout her book, which combines both literary and historical approaches. Though the Parson’s relationship to the late medieval English heresy Lollardy has been debated by Chaucerians since the nineteenth century,McCormack injects new energy into the conversation by challenging the traditional evidence on which the relationship was based in the first place. In the epilogue to theMan of Law’s Tale, the Shipman calls the Parson a “lollere” because of the Parson’s negative reaction to the Shipman’s swearing by God’s bones. Yet not even this kind of direct evidence, McCormack argues, should be taken at face value, since “objections to swearing per membra Christi abound in both orthodox and heterodox writings” (231). Instead, she engages the reader into a complex discussion of oath swearing by comparing the Parson’s and the Pardoner’s positions on oaths aswell asWycliff’s position and that of the Lollards in the delicate political climate of late medieval England (231– 233).