An Honest Liar

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.

Pardoner or Hypocrite??

I just want to start by pointing our that the Pardoner is so gross and crude that people tell him that they'll only listen to his story if it's one with moral...
     
        But right anon thise gentils gonne to crye,
        "Nay! lat him telle us of no ribaudye;
        Tel us som moral thing, that we may lere
        Som wit, and thanne wol we gladly here."

And then, on top of his grossness, hypocrisy seems to be his way of life! "My thee is alwey oon, and evere was- / Radix malorum est Cupiditas" (333). Which means that the love of money is the root to all evil, and yet...he's a pardoner!! He literally forgives the sins of others in exchange for money! And call me crazy, but if he was truly a God-fearing man, he would pardon people out of the kindness of his heart, not out of a desire for a heavier purse.

Not to mention, he preaches about the sin of covetousness and avarice, but he practices both himself. If fact, helping and pushing people to repent these sins is the very way that he feeds into his own vices (which he admits to around lines 424-434). And it would also appear to me that he targets those who are of less intelligence than him, because he believes that they are easier to trick because of their love of tales
    
        "For lewed peple loven tales olde;
        Swich thinges can they wel reporte and holde.
        What, trowe ye, the whyles I may preche
        And winne gold and silver for I teche
        That I wol live in poverty wilfully?

And to make me dislike him even more, he tells in his tale of people that drink and gamble and make false oaths, and says that all of those things are sins and whatnot. And yet again, he showcases his hypocrisy by the very fact that while he tells the tale, he himself is drunk. LOL he's so annoying...

I dislike the Pardoner.

Pardon Me, Sir

Okay, so here's the deal: the Pardoner is one greedy little dude. Frankly, I don't like him one bit. I mean, yeah, his story is interesting and everything, but like, he's all about the money and quite frankly, he doesn't care about much else.

Anyway, he's real big on sinning, and not just the "I'm selling this church stuff so pay me" kind of sinning. Like the dude is into partying and chicks, kinda like that drunken frat guy at the function that nobody's trying to mess with because he's just too sloppy. Real classy, Pardoner. 

The end of this tale is pretty funny/strange, like the two friends set out on a mission and end up killing each other... Which I mean, probably isn't the worst outcome that could have happened. I'm not gonna lie, it wasn't much of a loss. Maybe Chaucer did us all a favor and thought that we simply needed something like that to happen. My dear Geoffrey, you were correct.

At Least He's Honest....Kind of?

First things first, The Pardoner obviously knows what he wants and knows how to get it (cough cough money). Whether or not it is moral is a different story. I feel like just because other people do it doesn't make it okay, but he seems to think differently. My thoughts are at least he doesn't hide it from everyone....

The Pardoner also seems like a very judgmental person which, to me, is odd since he's not so innocent either (sips tea). That being said, in his story, the drunken friends set out to avenge the death of their other friend but instead they end up killing each other. I not going to lie, I'm definitely judging them because that really backfired and that a really crappy thing to do (and all for gold!).

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of others because, to me, this whole proloige and tale seem to be a cycle of sins and judgment.

Can I trim the sermon? Yes. Will I? No.

We’ve all heard fables and parables. They start out as simple stories, but then it becomes clear by the end that they have lessons. Usually, the storyteller does not drop the lesson until the end, and manages to reduce that lesson to a pithy sentence or two.

Not so with the Pardoner. Shamelessly, almost directly after introducing the three “ryotoures,” the Pardoner goes on for 175 lines (bless line numbers, bless them!) about the dangers of gluttony, gambling, swearing, and greed. Then, eventually, he gets back to the story, and his characters die. Afterward, he repeats his warnings and asks his fellow pilgrims and their host for money as penance. It seems redundant to give the moral up-front and then repeat it later. Were the Pardoner more laconic, it might make more sense for him to remind his audience, but like I said… 175 lines.

But perhaps this is just the Pardoner’s style of storytelling. It is not as pleasantly poetic as Chaucer’s way of not getting to the point (sorry not sorry, Chaucer), but it is a way of not getting to the point all the same. Perhaps the Pardoner thinks he will get the message across better if he goes on for longer. Not for the sake of others, I remind you; he says so himself: “But though myself be gilty in that sinne, / Yet can I maken other folk to twinne / From avarice, and sore to repente. / But that is nat my principal entente: / I preche nothing but for coveityse” (429-433). Maybe he has found in his line of work that speaking at length about sin riles up the most guilt and shame in the public, and thus brings him the most profit.

 Living the dream

Though the story and sermon stir discomfort in the host, and perhaps in the reader as well (advice: do not read this during a meal; at best, the references to burps, farts, and the half-digested muck in one’s stomach will induce a loss of appetite), there is also something a little humorous about the whole thing. The Pardoner is a hypocrite and he knows it. He knows it and he does not care. After drinking a good deal (one of the many things he warns against), he concludes his prologue with, “For though myself be a ful vicious man, / A moral tale yet I yow telle can, / Which I am wont to preche for to winne” (459-461). I don't know about you, but to me, there's something amusing in the repulsive shamelessness of the Pardoner's hypocrisy.

Yo I'll tell ya what I want, what I really really want!!

You can say one thing about the Pardoner: the man knows what he wants. And what does he want? Money! He should keep half an eye out for dragons.

It’s interesting (and very telling)  that, immediately before reciting his story, the Pardoner admits that he would “telle an hundred false japes more” (394) in order “to winne” (403), and that he has told this specific tale often for that purpose. I completely expected the sales pitch at the end of the tale, and I don’t begrudge the Host for unmercifully humiliating the Pardoner or, rather creatively, threatening to cut off the his “collions” (952) and to enshrine them in “an hogges tord” (955).

However, greed isn’t the Pardoner’s only vice, although it’s definitely his greatest. He explains that he often preaches against his own misconducts, and then spends over a hundred lines of his tale rambling about how terrible drunkenness is, and he is sure to spend some time decrying other related kinds of sin and debauchery, such as gluttony, gambling, and prostitution. We know that he admits that he “wol drink licour of the vyne, and have a joly wenche in every toun” (452-453), plus he has a “draughte of corny ale” (456) before he even starts his story. An alcoholic con man. What a charmer.

Scotty is too good to be compared the Pardoner, but he'd be a great drinking buddy, so here he is. Hopefully he won't commit any murders. 

It’s pretty funny, if more than a bit rude, that the Pardoner says that he chooses to recite fables to the masses because he believes that simple stories are the only thing that unlearned people can “wel reporte and holde” (438). I think it’s ironic that he looks down his nose at uneducated people that share his vices, when he himself admits that he’s not actually not as well-educated as other, more powerful, churchmen; after all, he can only “speke a wordes few” (344) of Latin, which was the main liturgical language in Medieval Europe. Moreover, he purposefully preaches with fables that advise against his own vices. It’s a very “do as I say, not as I do” setup, although I think the addendum “but pay me first” should be added to it.

First off, the Pardoner is quite the character. The entire time I was reading I had the constant worry that I was being lied to, but I could never quite tell if I was or not. At the very least, he obviously omits certain facts of the tales he tells to make his point. For example, on lines 505-512 the Pardoner is discussing why gluttony is humanities first ruin.  The Pardoner states that:

For whyl that Adam fasted, as I rede

He was in Paradys; and whan that he

Eet of the fruyt defended on the tree,

Anon he was outcated to wo and peyne. (508-511)

All the Pardoner talks about here is how bad Adam was for eating the forbidden fruit; this is completely opposite to the normal interpretation. Usually, it is Eve that is blamed for eating the forbidden fruit and then talking Adam into eating the fruit as well. He almost completely erases her from the picture; he does not even say her name! The Pardoner simply refers to Eve as “his [Adam’s] wyf” (505). On one had it makes me want to cheer because everything is not being blamed on the woman for once, but it also makes me want groan because he does not even mention the woman at all. 

IDK how to feel

Back to the Pardoner's tale though, how do these men expect to kill death? Do they realize how implausible that is? Are they simply still too drunk from their previous escapades to make any logical decisions? Or is the Pardoner simply pulling a fast one on us again?

Too Many Questions!

Compared to the Wife of Bath’s tale, I felt that this tale was lackluster. The thieves got what they deserved in the end and they all died because of their own selfish greed. It was a straightforward tale without much fluff or additions added to it. The tale seemed like one of the half-ass sermons he would give to people he wanted to give him money.  

Moral? Check!

Basic Plot? Check!

Anything beyond those two is simply a cherry on top for him.  

Can't he do a bit better?