I
found the Pardoner to be first and foremost one of the sleaziest characters I’ve
encountered in literature. After reading his prologue, I felt like I needed to
wash the sliminess of his conman ways from my hands and my brain. It was pretty
gross. Then, I got to his tale.
His
tale is intriguing. He is definitely an immoral man, but this is a pretty
straightforward and moral tale. If someone like the parson, or even the knight,
had told this tale, I would have had a different perception of it.
While
I’ve encountered “do as I say, not as I do” people, I can’t say that I have
ever met one who so readily and calmly admits it. Most of the people who are
like this go out of their way to ensure that no one figures out this flaw in
their character. The Pardoner doesn’t care whether or not people know. He’s
okay with what he does, even if it is wrong.
Reading
his prologue did strike up a thought about what a hypocrite really is. A
hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. Interesting…I don’t
know of anyone who isn’t a hypocrite in some way. They aren’t an uncommon
figure. They’re all over the place, yet we as the readers are automatically
compelled to point fingers and be angry at this one guy who is honest about his
hypocrisy. In pointing out the Pardoner’s hypocritical speeches and saying “See?
See how awful this guy is? What a slime ball!”, are we worried that someone
will point out the hypocrite in us? I’m a hypocrite. Let’s face it, you
probably have been, too. In looking at the Pardoner, I found that my finger was
pointing right back at me. Go figure.
On
another note, the role of the old man in the Pardoner’s tale was really
intriguing. I think he’s Death. My reasoning for this mostly comes from the
fact that in many stories that I’ve read, Death doesn’t usually ignore threats
directed at him. If the three guys in the bar we ranting and raving about how
they were going to kill Death (which is a funny enough phrase by itself), I don’t
think it’s out of the realm of possibility for Death himself to show up to
prove a point. In this case, he took the form of an old man. Death usually isn’t
stupid in stories. He is pretty clever and not above trickery. The three guys
are drunk. They’re not exactly thinking
clearly. Why wouldn’t they believe that some random old guy they’ve never seen
before is telling the truth? He had an easy answer, and all they had to do was
stumble over to the tree. It wasn’t like they had to go on this long journey.
And hey, they did find Death.
I pledge I have neither given nor recieved any unauthorized aid on this assignment.
Olivia,
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting how the Pardoner's story has made us all take a good look at ourselves. Like you confess to being a hypocrite, I think everyone was kind of conditioned to see that aspect of their personality after reading the Pardoner's tale, which I believe may be Chaucer's intention. The tales are a sort of mirror that society must hold up to itself.
What I find to be the sleaziest thing about the pardoner is his job. The whole concept of selling religion for personal gain is gross. But also, he tricks people into buying those fake relics which is gross, too. I found him as a character to be annoying but honestly I wasn't too offended by it. He tells us straight up that he's a liar and a sinner, so I don't think he expects us to care if he believes his story. Like I mentioned in class, kind of a "do as I say, not as I do. But also I don't really care if you do as I say just give me money and you're absolved". I'm also into your theory that the old man is death, I think that's an interesting way to bring the moral into various aspects of the story.
ReplyDelete